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

[Konrad Dybcio]

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