linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] media: qcom: camss: Add sc8280xp resource details

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: <e80d4026-a525-48ef-b53a-f1276dd316e6@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2023 15:13:58 +0000
From:   Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl,
        laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>,
        Todor Tomov <todor.too@...il.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, vincent.knecht@...loo.org,
        matti.lehtimaki@...il.com, quic_grosikop@...cinc.com
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] media: qcom: camss: Add sc8280xp resource details

On 09/11/2023 13:44, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> +        .clock_rate = { { 0 },
>> +                { 0 },
>> +                { 19200000, 80000000, 80000000, 80000000, 80000000},
>> +                { 19200000, 150000000, 266666667, 320000000, 
>> 400000000, 480000000 },
>> +                { 400000000, 558000000, 637000000, 760000000 },
>> +                { 0 }, },
> Not the case here!

I agree with you in principle, the checking for the frequency shouldn't 
rely on if (freq[x]) however in this case - we are doing aggregate 
initialisation of a fixed size array and the compiler should save us 
from ourselves.

./test
index 19200000 = 0
index 80000000 = 4
index 80000000 = 8
index 80000000 = 12
index 80000000 = 16
index 0 = 20
index 0 = 24
index 0 = 28
index 0 = 32
index 0 = 36
index 0 = 40
index 0 = 44
index 0 = 48
index 0 = 52
index 0 = 56
index 0 = 60
index 0 = 64

deckard@...ittarius-a:~/Development/qualcomm/qlt-kernel$ cat test.c
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>

#define CAMSS_RES_MAX 17

unsigned int clock_rate[CAMSS_RES_MAX][CAMSS_RES_MAX] = {
	{ 19200000, 80000000, 80000000, 80000000, 80000000},
};

int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
	int i;

	for (i = 0; i < CAMSS_RES_MAX; i++) {
		printf("index %d = %d\n", clock_rate[0][i]);
	}

	return 0;
}

However this code only works at the moment by happenstance not by design 
so, I will drop something separate to this series to remediate.

---
bod