On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 03:43:17PM +0530, Vikash Garodia wrote: > > On 12/2/2025 2:06 PM, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 10:25:23AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > > > On 21/11/2025 11:37, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > > > > > Sorry. > > > > > > > > > > Did we actually come up with a cogent reason to omit the video > > > > > firmware > > > > > loading here ? > > > > > > > > > > AFAIU it is required for Lemans and Glymur - leaving it out is > > > > > blocking > > > > > getting video stuff done and storing up trouble. > > > > > > > > > > What exactly is the blockage - is it something you want help with ? > > > > I replied to you here[1] and given my reason..till something concluded > > > > on > > > > "multi-cell IOMMU[2]", I can not add video and block what is working > > > > already. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20251105081421.f6j7ks5bd4dfgr67@hu-mojha- > > > > hyd.qualcomm.com/ > > > > > > Why though ? > > > > > > You are mixing together the issue of multiple SIDs and the original > > > loading > > > of firmware which could easily reuse the venus method of > > > > > > &iris { > > > video-firmware { > > > iommus = <&apss_smmu hex>; > > > }; > > > }; > > > > I completely understand what you are saying, and it would be very easy > > for me to do that if it gets accepted. However, I doubt that the people > > who raised this concern would agree with the approach. > > > > I’m not sure if the video team would like to pursue > > pixel/non-pixel/firmware context > > banks separately. I’ll leave this to @Vikas to answer. > > Not exactly as a separate sub-node, but i do like the idea of introducing a > simple iommu property, something like this, which Stephan proposed earlier > in the discussion [1] > > firmware-iommus = <&apps_smmu ...>; > > I understand that we are doing the iommu-map thing, but a property > exclusively for firmware like above look much simpler to me. >
"We know we need to find a generic solution to this very problem, but while we work on that let's add this quick hack to the ABI"? > Dmitry/ Bryan/ Krzysztof if you are good with this, we can bring back video > in this series. Please share your thoughts on this. > Please let's keep these concerns separate, so that we don't hold this series up further. Even if we choose to go by the subnode approach, in the same time frame, it's better to discuss it separately. Regards, Bjorn > Regards, > Vikash > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ > > > > > Also, I do not want the video PIL discussion to be part of this series, as > > it could > > unnecessarily give the impression that this series depends on it. > > > > > > > > That binding got dropped because it was unused in Iris. > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ > > > > > > I still fail to see why we are waiting for multi-cell IOMMU to land, when > > > it > > > is expected to and what the VPU enablement story is upstream in the > > > meantime. > > > > > > Blocked it seems. > > > > No, it is ongoing, there will be next version coming. > > > > > > > > --- > > > bod > > >
