[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a7228ac6-86ee-4ee2-beda-8252aa418d31@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 09:59:04 +0000
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@...aro.org>,
Wenmeng Liu <wenmeng.liu@....qualcomm.com>, Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>,
Todor Tomov <todor.too@...il.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] media: qcom: camss: Add common TPG support
On 16/01/2026 09:24, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>
>> keep namespace consistency between CSID-TPG and standalone-TPG.
>>
>
> When "consistency" is not defined, it's just a fine sounding buzzword.
I mean all spoken words /buzz/s//vibrate/ :)
> CSID TPG has:
> * modes, which numbers are continuously incremented,
> * the number of TPG modes for a user is expectedly the number of TPG modes.
>
> The displayed v8 of the "standalone TPG" broke both assumptions from above,
> so there is no more "consistency" between two TPGs, while I explicitly ask
> to preserve the "consistency".
I'm not sure I really follow what you're saying so, I'll restate what
I'm saying.
The values that you can set on the TPG from userspace via yavta should
be the same names/values when talking to the CSID version as the TPG
version.
Just looking at the list of strings, I think omitting the Reserved
pretty much does that.
But you certainly shouldn't have one set of strings for the CSID-TPG and
the dedicated TPG which produce the same test patterns, no matter how
its implemented under the hood.
---
bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists