Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] media: qcom: camss: Use >= CAMSS_SDM845 for vfe_get/vfe_put

[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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > 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