| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c0c08f7c-fb6c-4ae5-8748-1c1be74b5a38@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:54:52 +0530
From: Yemike Abhilash Chandra <y-abhilashchandra@...com>
To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
CC: <hansg@...nel.org>, <mehdi.djait@...ux.intel.com>, <ribalda@...omium.org>,
<git@...tzsch.eu>, <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>,
<benjamin.mugnier@...s.st.com>, <dongcheng.yan@...el.com>, <u-kumar1@...com>,
<jai.luthra@...ux.dev>, <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<mchehab@...nel.org>, <robh@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, <hverkuil@...all.nl>, <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
<laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] media: i2c: ds90ub960: Use enums for chip type and
chip family
Hi Tomi,
Thanks for the review.
On 05/12/25 16:16, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/12/2025 12:22, Yemike Abhilash Chandra wrote:
>> Replace chip-specific boolean flags with chip_type and chip_family enums.
>> This simplifies the process of adding support for newer devices and also
>> improves code readability.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yemike Abhilash Chandra <y-abhilashchandra@...com>
>> ---
>> drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
>> index 5a83218e64ab..45494fcaf095 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
>> @@ -454,12 +454,21 @@
>> #define UB960_MAX_EQ_LEVEL 14
>> #define UB960_NUM_EQ_LEVELS (UB960_MAX_EQ_LEVEL - UB960_MIN_EQ_LEVEL + 1)
>>
>> +enum chip_type {
>> + UB960,
>> + UB9702,
>> +};
>> +
>> +enum chip_family {
>> + FAMILY_FPD3,
>> + FAMILY_FPD4,
>> +};
>> +
>> struct ub960_hw_data {
>> - const char *model;
>> + enum chip_type chip_type;
>> + enum chip_family chip_family;
>> u8 num_rxports;
>> u8 num_txports;
>> - bool is_ub9702;
>> - bool is_fpdlink4;
>> };
>>
>> enum ub960_rxport_mode {
>> @@ -1933,7 +1942,7 @@ static int ub960_rxport_wait_locks(struct ub960_data *priv,
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - if (priv->hw_data->is_ub9702) {
>> + if (priv->hw_data->chip_type == UB9702) {
>> dev_dbg(dev, "\trx%u: locked, freq %llu Hz\n",
>> nport, ((u64)v * HZ_PER_MHZ) >> 8);
>> } else {
>> @@ -2195,7 +2204,7 @@ static int ub960_rxport_add_serializer(struct ub960_data *priv, u8 nport)
>>
>> ser_pdata->port = nport;
>> ser_pdata->atr = priv->atr;
>> - if (priv->hw_data->is_ub9702)
>> + if (priv->hw_data->chip_type == UB9702)
>> ser_pdata->bc_rate = ub960_calc_bc_clk_rate_ub9702(priv, rxport);
>> else
>> ser_pdata->bc_rate = ub960_calc_bc_clk_rate_ub960(priv, rxport);
>> @@ -2361,7 +2370,7 @@ static int ub960_init_tx_ports(struct ub960_data *priv)
>> {
>> int ret;
>>
>> - if (priv->hw_data->is_ub9702)
>> + if (priv->hw_data->chip_type == UB9702)
>> ret = ub960_init_tx_ports_ub9702(priv);
>> else
>> ret = ub960_init_tx_ports_ub960(priv);
>> @@ -3633,7 +3642,7 @@ static int ub960_configure_ports_for_streaming(struct ub960_data *priv,
>>
>> case RXPORT_MODE_CSI2_SYNC:
>> case RXPORT_MODE_CSI2_NONSYNC:
>> - if (!priv->hw_data->is_ub9702) {
>> + if (priv->hw_data->chip_type != UB9702) {
>
> While the above is correct, I think it's better to do 'if
> (what-we-need-here)'. So rather check for UB960.
>
I will change this in v3.
>> /* Map all VCs from this port to the same VC */
>> ub960_rxport_write(priv, nport, UB960_RR_CSI_VC_MAP,
>> (vc << UB960_RR_CSI_VC_MAP_SHIFT(3)) |
>> @@ -4259,7 +4268,7 @@ static int ub960_log_status(struct v4l2_subdev *sd)
>>
>> dev_info(dev, "\tcsi_err_counter %u\n", v);
>>
>> - if (!priv->hw_data->is_ub9702) {
>> + if (priv->hw_data->chip_type != UB9702) {
>
> Same here.
>
>> ret = ub960_log_status_ub960_sp_eq(priv, nport);
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>> @@ -4417,7 +4426,7 @@ ub960_parse_dt_rxport_link_properties(struct ub960_data *priv,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> - if (!priv->hw_data->is_fpdlink4 && cdr_mode == RXPORT_CDR_FPD4) {
>> + if (priv->hw_data->chip_family != FAMILY_FPD4 && cdr_mode == RXPORT_CDR_FPD4) {
>> dev_err(dev, "rx%u: FPD-Link 4 CDR not supported\n", nport);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> @@ -4976,6 +4985,7 @@ static int ub960_get_hw_resources(struct ub960_data *priv)
>> static int ub960_enable_core_hw(struct ub960_data *priv)
>> {
>> struct device *dev = &priv->client->dev;
>> + const char *model;
>> u8 rev_mask;
>> int ret;
>> u8 dev_sts;
>> @@ -5012,14 +5022,24 @@ static int ub960_enable_core_hw(struct ub960_data *priv)
>> goto err_pd_gpio;
>> }
>>
>> - dev_dbg(dev, "Found %s (rev/mask %#04x)\n", priv->hw_data->model,
>> - rev_mask);
>> + switch (priv->hw_data->chip_type) {
>> + case UB960:
>> + model = "UB960";
>> + break;
>> + case UB9702:
>> + model = "Ub9702";
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + model = "Unknown";
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + dev_dbg(dev, "Found %s (rev/mask %#04x)\n", model, rev_mask);
>>
>> ret = ub960_read(priv, UB960_SR_DEVICE_STS, &dev_sts, NULL);
>> if (ret)
>> goto err_pd_gpio;
>>
>> - if (priv->hw_data->is_ub9702)
>> + if (priv->hw_data->chip_type == UB9702)
>> ret = ub960_read(priv, UB9702_SR_REFCLK_FREQ, &refclk_freq,
>> NULL);
>> else
>> @@ -5038,7 +5058,7 @@ static int ub960_enable_core_hw(struct ub960_data *priv)
>> goto err_pd_gpio;
>>
>> /* release GPIO lock */
>> - if (priv->hw_data->is_ub9702) {
>> + if (priv->hw_data->chip_type == UB9702) {
>> ret = ub960_update_bits(priv, UB960_SR_RESET,
>> UB960_SR_RESET_GPIO_LOCK_RELEASE,
>> UB960_SR_RESET_GPIO_LOCK_RELEASE,
>> @@ -5111,7 +5131,7 @@ static int ub960_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>> if (ret)
>> goto err_free_ports;
>>
>> - if (priv->hw_data->is_ub9702)
>> + if (priv->hw_data->chip_type == UB9702)
>> ret = ub960_init_rx_ports_ub9702(priv);
>> else
>> ret = ub960_init_rx_ports_ub960(priv);
>> @@ -5179,17 +5199,17 @@ static void ub960_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>> }
>>
>> static const struct ub960_hw_data ds90ub960_hw = {
>> - .model = "ub960",
>> + .chip_type = UB960,
>> + .chip_family = FAMILY_FPD3,
>
> I think we can keep the model name here. It's a bit duplicate with the
> chip_type, but allows us to drop that switch-case from probe.
>
Understood, I will keep the model name here and drop the switch case.
Thanks and Regards,
Yemike Abhilash Chandra
>> .num_rxports = 4,
>> .num_txports = 2,
>> };
>>
>> static const struct ub960_hw_data ds90ub9702_hw = {
>> - .model = "ub9702",
>> + .chip_type = UB9702,
>> + .chip_family = FAMILY_FPD4,
>> .num_rxports = 4,
>> .num_txports = 2,
>> - .is_ub9702 = true,
>> - .is_fpdlink4 = true,
>> };
>>
>> static const struct i2c_device_id ub960_id[] = {
>
> Tomi
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists