linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] media: qcom: camss: Flag which VFEs require a power-domain

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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 22:05:31 +0200
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl, laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com,
        rfoss@...nel.org, todor.too@...il.com, 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 v2 1/5] media: qcom: camss: Flag which VFEs require a
 power-domain



On 10/26/23 17:50, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> At the moment we have some complex code for determining if a VFE requires a
> power-domain attachment. Particularly discordant in this scheme is the
> subtle reliance on VFE and VFE Lite declaration ordering in our resources.
> 
> VFE id is used to determine if a VFE is lite or not and consequently if a
> VFE requires power-domain attachment. VFE Lite though is not a correct
> delineation between power-domain and non power-domain state since early
> SoCs have neither VFE Lite nor power-domains attached to VFEs.
> 
> Introduce has_pd to the VFE resource structure to allow the CAMSS code to
> understand if it needs to try to attach a power-domain for a given VFE.
> 
> As a side-effect from this we no longer need to care about VFE Lite or
> non-Lite or the id number associated with either and which order the
> VFE/VFE Lite was declared in.
> 
> Add the flag and populate the resources. Subsequent patches will disjunct
> on the bool.
Generally such things are expected (?) to ship together, but I see that these
patches are quite big as they are, so this is totally fine!

> 
> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>

Konrad