linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] media: qcom: camss: Add CAMSS

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: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:59:33 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
 Depeng Shao <quic_depengs@...cinc.com>, rfoss@...nel.org,
 todor.too@...il.com, andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
 mchehab@...nel.org, quic_yon@...cinc.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] media: qcom: camss: Add CAMSS_8550 enum

On 20/03/2024 16:53, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 15:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/03/2024 15:11, Depeng Shao wrote:
>>> From: Yongsheng Li <quic_yon@...cinc.com>
>>>
>>> Adds a CAMSS SoC identifier for the sm8550.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yongsheng Li <quic_yon@...cinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss.h | 1 +
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss.h b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss.h
>>> index ac15fe23a702..2f63206a8463 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss.h
>>> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ enum camss_version {
>>>   	CAMSS_845,
>>>   	CAMSS_8250,
>>>   	CAMSS_8280XP,
>>> +	CAMSS_8550,
>>>   };
>>
>> What is the point of this patch alone? What does it change? Why adding
>> enum? In the next patch, are you going to add one line to some
>> kerneldoc? Another patch, one function?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
> 
> Yeah true enough, you could also add this enum where you use it..

Just to clarify my comment: this does not mean that entire patchset
should be squashed into one patch, because that would be unmanageable.
But your work should be organized in logical chunks, where some added
code is being used. There is at least one more such change without
immediate users in this patchset...

Best regards,
Krzysztof