Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Aug 2023 15:56:20 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] media: qcom: camss: Use >= CAMSS_SDM845 for vfe_get/vfe_put | From | Bryan O'Donoghue <> |
| |
On 18/08/2023 13:29, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > 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
I take the point.
I'll look at a macro or a helper function
if (csid_within_vfe(version)) {}
That way there's just one source of truth and the chronology is irrelevant.
--- bod
| |