linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: qcom: camss: vfe: Stop spamming logs with version

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: <5ee11453-bdf5-4345-a49d-2a79bf3e9063@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 11:16:45 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
 Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>, Todor Tomov <todor.too@...il.com>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: qcom: camss: vfe: Stop spamming logs with
 version

On 20/05/2025 10:58, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 20/05/2025 09:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>           qcom-camss ac5a000.camss: VFE:0 HW Version = 1.2.2
>>           qcom-camss ac5a000.camss: VFE:1 HW Version = 1.2.2
>>           qcom-camss ac5a000.camss: VFE:2 HW Version = 1.2.2
>>           qcom-camss ac5a000.camss: VFE:3 HW Version = 1.2.2
>>           qcom-camss ac5a000.camss: VFE:4 HW Version = 1.3.0
>>           qcom-camss ac5a000.camss: VFE:5 HW Version = 1.3.0
>>           qcom-camss ac5a000.camss: VFE:6 HW Version = 1.3.0
>>           qcom-camss ac5a000.camss: VFE:7 HW Version = 1.3.0
> 
> This prints the hardware version of eight distinct hardware blocks VFE 
> index increases.
> 
> TBH I still find this useful when debugging hardware.

How? Can you respond to actual arguments repeated 5 times that this is
fixed and always known?

If this is always known, in what way this is useful?

> 
> My personal preference is to print it once on boot and skip subsequent. 
> Which I think is perfectly reasonable for DEBUG scenario.
What are you responding to? Before you said you find it useful for
knowing each block power up and down?



Best regards,
Krzysztof