linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/13] media: qcom: camss: csiphy: Add an init callback to CSI PHY devices

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: <e7476a09-4e11-4171-89ed-61b41c9f5cc9@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 12:32:10 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Depeng Shao <quic_depengs@...cinc.com>,
 Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>, rfoss@...nel.org,
 todor.too@...il.com, mchehab@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
 krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org
Cc: quic_eberman@...cinc.com, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] media: qcom: camss: csiphy: Add an init callback to
 CSI PHY devices

On 08/08/2024 15:02, Depeng Shao wrote:
> I'm updating the code based on above comments, but I meet crash issue if 
> I move the offset assignment to csiphy_gen2_config_lanes, since the 
> csiphy->res->hw_ops->reset(csiphy) is called earlier than 
> csiphy_gen2_config_lanes, so if we don't have the .init interface, we 
> only can move this offset value to `struct csiphy_subdev_resources`, but 
> if we add the offset to `struct csiphy_subdev_resources`, then below two 
> patches are also can be dropped.
> 
> 
> [PATCH 05/13] media: qcom: camss: csiphy-3ph: Move CSIPHY variables to 
> data field inside csiphy struct
> [PATCH 06/13] media: qcom: camss: csiphy-3ph: Use an offset variable to 
> find common control regs
> 
> 
> Could you please comment on if I need to add the CSI_COMMON_CTR offset 
> to res directly?
> Or add back the .init interface?

Ah, I hadn't recalled why the .init was added -> because sequencing.

Lets retain the patch but expand the commit log to explain why the init 
is being added, instead of jumping through hoops to restructure to get 
rid of it.

---
bod