[PATCH v5, 00/15] Using component framework to support multi hardware decode

[Ezequiel Garcia]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 at 13:50, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 4:12 PM Ezequiel Garcia
> <ezequiel at vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote:
> >
> > +danvet
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 23:58, Yunfei Dong <yunfei.dong at mediatek.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This series adds support for multi hardware decode into mtk-vcodec, by first
> > > adding component framework to manage each hardware information: interrupt,
> > > clock, register bases and power. Secondly add core thread to deal with core
> > > hardware message, at the same time, add msg queue for different hardware
> > > share messages. Lastly, the architecture of different specs are not the same,
> > > using specs type to separate them.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think it's a good idea to introduce the component API in the
> > media subsystem. It doesn't seem to be maintained, IRC there's not even
> > a maintainer for it, and it has some issues that were never addressed.
>
> Defacto dri-devel folks are maintainer component.c, but also I'm not
> aware of anything missing there?
>

A while ago, I tried to fix a crash in the Rockchip DRM driver
(I was then told there can be similar issues on the IMX driver too,
but I forgot the details of that).

I sent a patchset trying to address it and got total silence back.
Although you could argue the issue is in how drivers use the component
API, AFAICR the abuse is spreaded across a few drivers, so it felt
more reasonable to improve the component API itself, instead of changing
all the drivers.

See below:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-rockchip/cover/20200120170602.3832-1-ezequiel@collabora.com/

> There has been discussions that in various drm subsystems like
> drm_bridge or drm_panel a few things are missing, which prevent
> drivers from moving _away_ from component.c to the more specific
> solutions for panel/bridges. But nothing that's preventing them from
> using component.c itself.
>
> I'm happy to merge a MAINTAINERS patch to clarify the situation if
> that's needed.

Indeed, that would be good.

Thanks,
Ezequiel