On 5/6/26 2:33 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 05/05/2026 22:44, Erikas Bitovtas wrote:
>> +    .vcodec_clks = { "core0", "core1" },
>> +    .vcodec_clks_num = 2,
> 
> This smells a bit dodgy to me.
> 
> You already have
> 
> struct clk *vcodec0_clks[VIDC_VCODEC_CLKS_NUM_MAX];
> struct clk *vcodec1_clks[VIDC_VCODEC_CLKS_NUM_MAX];
> 
> so why add vcodec_clks and put core0 and core1 into a new array.
> vcodec0_clks and vcodec1_clks seem like a very natural place for core0
> and core1 clocks to live ?
> 
Sashiko found some power management issues in my code, so I'm coming
back to this.
The idea is to call vcodec_clks_get only once for inline cores, thus
avoiding duplicate clock assignment. Attaching to vcodec{0,1}_clks
instead would mean we're adding the same clocks twice. I dropped it in
later revisions, but now I want to re-introduce this, then add them in
core_get_v1 instead of {vdec,venc}_get_v1.> ---
> bod


Reply via email to