[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f1a8e7db-ce26-4bdc-beb6-00ae4f0baa78@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:28:48 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>, rfoss@...nel.org,
todor.too@...il.com, agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
mchehab@...nel.org, hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl,
laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
andrey.konovalov@...aro.org
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] media: qcom: camss: Use >= CAMSS_SDM845 for
vfe_get/vfe_put
On 17.08.2023 16:38, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> From sdm845 onwards we need to ensure the VFE is powered on prior to
> switching on the CSID.
>
> Alternatively we could model up the GDSCs and clocks the CSID needs
> without the VFE but, there's a real question of the legitimacy of such a
> use-case.
>
> For now drawing a line at sdm845 and switching on the associated VFEs is
> a perfectly valid thing to do.
>
> Rather than continually extend out this clause for at least two new SoCs
> with this same model - making the vfe_get/vfe_put path start to look
> like spaghetti we can simply test for >= sdm845 here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
> ---
Using >= here is veeery arbitrary and depends on the next person
adding a SoC in chronological, or used-tech-chronological order
correctly.. Not a fan!
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists