lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 26 Apr 2020 05:38:35 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <>
To:     Sowjanya Komatineni <>,
        Hans Verkuil <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v10 6/9] media: tegra: Add Tegra210 Video input driver

26.04.2020 05:19, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
> On 4/25/20 7:10 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>> 26.04.2020 04:43, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>> ...
>>>> It looks to me that at least all those hardcoded HW format IDs do not
>>>> match the older SoCs.
>>> TPG hard coded formats are supported on prior Tegra.
>>> Other supported formats are SoC dependent and  part of soc data in the
>>> driver already.
>> But I don't see where that SoC-dependent definition is made in
>> terga210.c. That tegra_image_format enum looks T210-specific, isn't it?
>> ...
> Video formats which are SoC variants are made soc specific in driver
> already tegra_vi_soc structure member video_formats
> tegra_image_format enum is same for T210 and T186
> For T194, enums will be diff and will have diff TEGRA194_VIDEO_FORMAT
> using corresponding Tegra194 video format enums
But it is also not the same for older SoCs, correct? All the
T210-specific things should be separated better, unique parts shouldn't
be kept in the common code.

Hence the tegra_image_format should be renamed to tegra210_image_format
and moved out to t210.h, since it's not common. But then you'll probably
need to rename all TEGRA_ defines to TEGRA210_ to make t210.h reusable
by T186.

Also, in the end it may not worth the effort to share anything at all,
it could be cleaner to have a bit of duplication. Although, I have no
idea how T186 code will look like and what other parts of T210 could be
reused by T186. All this needs to be taken into account in order to
avoid struggling with the code's reshuffling in the future.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists