linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] media: dt-bindings: Add qcom,sc7280-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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e7f5f84d-d7cd-4052-bc8c-1b1e5f2a0073@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:54:06 +0200
From: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
 Vikram Sharma <quic_vikramsa@...cinc.com>, rfoss@...nel.org,
 todor.too@...il.com, mchehab@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
 krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, akapatra@...cinc.com,
 hariramp@...cinc.com, andersson@...nel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org,
 hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl, cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org,
 catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 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 v6 1/5] media: dt-bindings: Add qcom,sc7280-camss

Hi Bryan,

On 11/28/24 01:31, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 27/11/2024 12:57, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>
>>> +        camss: camss@...f000 {
>>> +            compatible = "qcom,sc7280-camss";
>>> +
>>> +            reg = <0x0 0x0acb3000 0x0 0x1000>,
>>> +                  <0x0 0x0acc8000 0x0 0x1000>,
>>
>> Unsurprisingly above is the error, which has been already reported for
>> enumerous amount of times, I wish to stop poking it eventually, please
>> reference to the previously given review comments and fix all of them
>> before sending a new version of the changes.
> 
> So just to be clear what is wrong here because it may not be clear.
> 
> 1. Sort by IP name
> 2. The first address @ reg should be equal to the address @ camss
> 
> -> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,msm8953-camss.yaml
> 
>       camss: camss@...0020 {
>           compatible = "qcom,msm8953-camss";
> 
>           reg = <0x1b00020 0x10>,
>                 <0x1b30000 0x100>,
>                 <0x1b30400 0x100>,
>                 <0x1b30800 0x100>,
>                 <0x1b34000 0x1000>,
>                 <0x1b00030 0x4>,
>                 <0x1b35000 0x1000>,
>                 <0x1b00038 0x4>,
>                 <0x1b36000 0x1000>,
>                 <0x1b00040 0x4>,
>                 <0x1b31000 0x500>,
>                 <0x1b10000 0x1000>,
>                 <0x1b14000 0x1000>;
>           reg-names = "csi_clk_mux",
>                       "csid0",
>                       "csid1",
>                       "csid2",
>                       "csiphy0",
>                       "csiphy0_clk_mux",
>                       "csiphy1",
>                       "csiphy1_clk_mux",
>                       "csiphy2",
>                       "csiphy2_clk_mux",
>                       "ispif",
>                       "vfe0",
>                       "vfe1";
> So:
> 
>           camss: camss@...f000 {
>               compatible = "qcom,sc7280-camss";
> 
>               reg = <0x0 0x0acaf000 0x0 0x4000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acb3000 0x0 0x1000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acc8000 0x0 0x1000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acba000 0x0 0x1000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0accf000 0x0 0x1000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acc1000 0x0 0x1000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0ace0000 0x0 0x2000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0ace2000 0x0 0x2000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0ace4000 0x0 0x2000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0ace6000 0x0 0x2000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0ace8000 0x0 0x2000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acc4000 0x0 0x4000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acb6000 0x0 0x4000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0accb000 0x0 0x4000>,
>                     <0x0 0x0acbd000 0x0 0x4000>;
>               reg-names = "vfe0",
>                           "csid0",
>                           "csid0_lite",
>                           "csid1",
>                           "csid1_lite",
>                           "csid2",
>                           "csiphy0",
>                           "csiphy1",
>                           "csiphy2",
>                           "csiphy3",
>                           "csiphy4",
>                           "vfe0_lite",
>                           "vfe1",
>                           "vfe1_lite",
>                           "vfe2";

So, apparently it is the third and the new proposed order of sorting. Any
following scheme is worse than the previous one in my opinion, but why not.

--
Best wishes,
Vladimir