linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] media: qcom: camss: Use >= CAMSS_SDM845 for vfe_get/vfe

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <4d14de78-16a9-4720-9422-b684f261df01@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:29:19 +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 18.08.2023 14:28, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 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!

Perhaps some sort of a compatible-bound flag would be better suited

Konrad