lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 07/13] media: qcom: camss: Use >= CAMSS_SDM845 for vfe_get/vfe_put
    From
    On 18.08.2023 14:28, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
    > On 17.08.2023 16:38, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
    >> From sdm845 onwards we need to ensure the VFE is powered on prior to
    >> switching on the CSID.
    >>
    >> Alternatively we could model up the GDSCs and clocks the CSID needs
    >> without the VFE but, there's a real question of the legitimacy of such a
    >> use-case.
    >>
    >> For now drawing a line at sdm845 and switching on the associated VFEs is
    >> a perfectly valid thing to do.
    >>
    >> Rather than continually extend out this clause for at least two new SoCs
    >> with this same model - making the vfe_get/vfe_put path start to look
    >> like spaghetti we can simply test for >= sdm845 here.
    >>
    >> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>
    >> ---
    > Using >= here is veeery arbitrary and depends on the next person
    > adding a SoC in chronological, or used-tech-chronological order
    > correctly.. Not a fan!

    Perhaps some sort of a compatible-bound flag would be better suited

    Konrad

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-08-18 14:31    [W:4.382 / U:0.308 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site