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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d4418b5c-9302-072a-0629-e7161c79fb62@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 19 Aug 2023 15:56:20 +0100
From:   Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...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 13:29, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 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

I take the point.

I'll look at a macro or a helper function

if (csid_within_vfe(version)) {}

That way there's just one source of truth and the chronology is irrelevant.

---
bod