Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] media: qcom: iris: split firmware_data from raw platform data

From: Dikshita Agarwal

Date: Tue Mar 17 2026 - 01:45:31 EST

On 3/17/2026 1:29 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 12:01:48PM +0530, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/13/2026 2:55 PM, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/13/2026 1:37 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 01:19:21PM +0530, Dikshita Agarwal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, I've refreshed the series before receiving this email. I will
>>>> send new iteration after settling the discussion here.
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/13/2026 9:00 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>> Having firmware-related fields in platform data results in the tying
>>>>>> platform data to the HFI firmware data rather than the actual hardware.
>>>>>> For example, SM8450 uses Gen2 firmware, so currently its platform data
>>>>>> should be placed next to the other gen2 platforms, although it has the
>>>>>> VPU2.0 core, similar to the one found on SM8250 and SC7280 and so the
>>>>>> hardware-specific platform data is also close to those devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Split firmware data to a separate struct, separating hardware-related
>>>>>> data from the firmware interfaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_buffer.c | 84 +++----
>>>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_core.h | 1 +
>>>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_ctrls.c | 8 +-
>>>>>> .../platform/qcom/iris/iris_hfi_gen1_command.c | 10 +-
>>>>>> .../platform/qcom/iris/iris_hfi_gen2_command.c | 66 ++---
>>>>>> .../platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h | 79 +++---
>>>>>> .../media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen1.c | 68 +++---
>>>>>> .../media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen2.c | 268 +++++++--------------
>>>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_probe.c | 3 +-
>>>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_vidc.c | 10 +-
>>>>>> 10 files changed, 246 insertions(+), 351 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h
>>>>>> index d1daef2d874b..1a870fec4f31 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_common.h
>>>>>> @@ -201,45 +201,16 @@ enum platform_pm_domain_type {
>>>>>> IRIS_APV_HW_POWER_DOMAIN,
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -struct iris_platform_data {
>>>>>> +struct iris_firmware_data {
>>>>>> void (*init_hfi_ops)(struct iris_core *core);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> u32 (*get_vpu_buffer_size)(struct iris_inst *inst, enum iris_buffer_type buffer_type);
>>>>>
>>>>> I still don't think it's right to keep vpu_buffer_size in firmware data as
>>>>> this would change mostly for every new VPU variant.
>>>>>
>>>>> The buffer sizing logic depends on VPU generation (vpu2, vpu3, vpu33,
>>>>> vpu35) / SoC constraints, not on whether the HFI is Gen1 vs Gen2.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, so how do we solve the SC7280 Gen1 vs Gen2 situation? I can keep
>>>> the function pointer in struct iris_platform_data for now, letting you
>>>> sort it out in your series.
>>>
>>> Thanks! that is SC7280 problem, since code evolved due to additional
>>> features and other things, we might need to increase the vpu2 buffer size
>>> to accommodate both Ge1 and Gen2 requirement, I will check that and address
>>> in my series.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen2.c b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen2.c
>>>>>> index 10a972f96cbe..a83f6910f8b7 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen2.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_platform_gen2.c
>>>>>> @@ -906,41 +906,15 @@ static const u32 sm8550_enc_op_int_buf_tbl[] = {
>>>>>> BUF_SCRATCH_2,
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -const struct iris_platform_data sm8550_data = {
>>>>>> +const struct iris_firmware_data iris_hfi_gen2_data = {
>>>>>> .init_hfi_ops = iris_hfi_gen2_sys_ops_init,
>>>>>> .get_vpu_buffer_size = iris_vpu_buf_size,
>>>>>> - .vpu_ops = &iris_vpu3_ops,
>>>>>> - .icc_tbl = sm8550_icc_table,
>>>>>> - .icc_tbl_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_icc_table),
>>>>>> - .clk_rst_tbl = sm8550_clk_reset_table,
>>>>>> - .clk_rst_tbl_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_clk_reset_table),
>>>>>> - .bw_tbl_dec = sm8550_bw_table_dec,
>>>>>> - .bw_tbl_dec_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_bw_table_dec),
>>>>>> - .pmdomain_tbl = sm8550_pmdomain_table,
>>>>>> - .pmdomain_tbl_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_pmdomain_table),
>>>>>> - .opp_pd_tbl = sm8550_opp_pd_table,
>>>>>> - .opp_pd_tbl_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_opp_pd_table),
>>>>>> - .clk_tbl = sm8550_clk_table,
>>>>>> - .clk_tbl_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_clk_table),
>>>>>> - .opp_clk_tbl = sm8550_opp_clk_table,
>>>>>> - /* Upper bound of DMA address range */
>>>>>> - .dma_mask = 0xe0000000 - 1,
>>>>>> - .fwname = "qcom/vpu/vpu30_p4.mbn",
>>>>>
>>>>> Should fw_name be in firmware_data? as this can be change based on HFI
>>>>> versions?
>>>>
>>>> That would fail because then each device will have to gain its own
>>>> struct iris_firmware_data.
>>>>
>>>> But... Maybe we can do something as simple as:
>>>>
>>>> struct iris_firmware_desc {
>>>> const char *fwname;
>>>> u32 (*get_vpu_buffer_size)(struct iris_inst *inst, enum iris_buffer_type buffer_type);
>>>> bool (*checK_fw_match)(u8 *buf, size_t size);
>>>> const struct iris_firmware_data *data;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> and then
>>>>
>>>> struct iris_platform_data {
>>>> struct iris_firmware_desc *gen1, *gen2;
>>>> // .. the rest as usual;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> struct iris_core {
>>>> u32 (*get_vpu_buffer_size)(struct iris_inst *inst, enum iris_buffer_type buffer_type);
>>>> const struct iris_firmware_data *data;
>>>> // ... the rest as expected
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> During first open the driver will try loading firmware from DT and
>>>> identifying it using the check_fw_match() callback. If DT doesn't have
>>>> firmware-name the driver will try loading gen2 and, if not found, gen1.
>>>> When firmware loading succeeds, it will set the pointer and the callback
>>>> in iris_core, settling the interface between the driver and the
>>>> firmware.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> This looks good to me. It handles the SC7280 Gen1 vs Gen2 buffer size
>>> differences as well.
>>
>> Do you plan to implement above design in the next version of your series?
>
> I've sent the platform_data patchset keeping the get_vpu_buffer_size in
> place (as you suggested) because that is fine for the current supported
> usecases. I would prefer if iris_firmware_desc comes as a part of your
> Kodiak Gen1-vs-Gen2 patchset. I can send you a corresponding patch, if
> you wan, or you can implement that on your own. What would be your
> preference?
>

If you already have something in progress, it would be helpful if you could
share it. I can base my kodiak gen2 series on top of it.

Thanks,
Dikshita

>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dikshita
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dikshita
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> -const struct iris_platform_data sm8650_data = {
>>>>>> +const struct iris_firmware_data iris_hfi_gen2_vpu33_data = {
>>>>>
>>>>> This proves my above point.
>>>>>
>>>>> iris_hfi_gen2_data and iris_hfi_gen2_vpu33_data become identical except for
>>>>> get_vpu_buffer_size, which forces us to create multiple “firmware_data”
>>>>> variants just to carry a hardware-specific difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, it will scale poorly going forward. When we introduce vpu4 /
>>>>> vpu5–based platforms, we would need to add more copies of essentially the
>>>>> same HFI Gen2 firmware_data, differing only in the buffer sizing callback.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I'm not sure, if there is any difference between params / caps as
>>>> implremented by the firmware for those generations.
>>>>
>