[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b702201-4418-4bbe-95b2-50039c08b4d8@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:57:36 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Depeng Shao <quic_depengs@...cinc.com>, rfoss@...nel.org,
todor.too@...il.com, mchehab@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...cinc.com, Yongsheng Li <quic_yon@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] media: qcom: camss: Add support for VFE hardware
version Titan 780
On 29/09/2024 02:28, Depeng Shao wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for catching this, I forget to add the rup irq, so this logic
>> is also missed. I have tried it just now, the logic works good, will
>> add it in next version patch.
>>
>
> I go through the code again, and find we don't do the wait for
> completion in VFE 480 driver, this is just used in VFE gen1 driver and
> just during disabling port.
Right but, we _should_ wait for completion there, the fact we don't is a
bug.
One context issues a command to take an action and another context in
this case an ISR has to fire for that action to be complete.
Therefore we _should_ wait_for_completion() in the initiating context
and timeout if it exceeds a reasonable timeout.
Granted, we've "dropped the ball" in 480 you're right, it needs to be
fixed and will be but, please in your submission do the right thing.
---
bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists