[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fdd775e5-1e43-4f65-b444-da6b83e3df5b@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:40:04 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl,
laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, rfoss@...nel.org,
todor.too@...il.com, agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
mchehab@...nel.org
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] media: qcom: camss: Use common VFE
pm_domain_on/pm_domain_off where applicable
On 25/10/2023 10:18, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> educe the pattern down to a common callback. VFE 4.1 is a special case
>> which to me also indicates that it is worthwhile maintaining an
>> indirection
>> for the vfe_pm_domain_{on|off} for now.
> Are there issues when powering it off like all the others?
4.1 doesn't have a VFE power-domain just a top level controller PD,
however I think a blank callback is neater than
if (vfe->pm_domain_on) {
vfe->pd_domain_on();
}
its just vfe->pm_domain_on(); at the cost of 1 or 2 instructions for
indirection.
---
bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists