Hi Arun,

On 18 June 2013 11:25, Arun Kumar K <arunkk.sams...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sachin,
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Sachin Kamat <sachin.ka...@linaro.org> 
> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2013 10:21, Arun Kumar K <arunkk.sams...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Kamil,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the review.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>  #define IS_MFCV6(dev)                (dev->variant->version >= 0x60 ? 1 :
>>>> 0)
>>>>> +#define IS_MFCV7(dev)                (dev->variant->version >= 0x70 ? 1 :
>>>> 0)
>>>>
>>>> According to this, MFC v7 is also detected as MFC v6. Was this intended?
>>>
>>> Yes this was intentional as most of v7 will be reusing the v6 code and
>>> only minor
>>> changes are there w.r.t firmware interface.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think that it would be much better to use this in code:
>>>>         if (IS_MFCV6(dev) || IS_MFCV7(dev))
>>>> And change the define to detect only single MFC revision:
>>>>         #define IS_MFCV6(dev)           (dev->variant->version >= 0x60 &&
>>>> dev->variant->version < 0x70)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I kept it like that since the macro IS_MFCV6() is used quite frequently
>>> in the driver. Also if MFCv8 comes which is again similar to v6 (not
>>> sure about this),
>>> then it will add another OR condition to this check.
>>>
>>>> Other possibility I see is to change the name of the check. Although
>>>> IS_MFCV6_OR_NEWER(dev) seems too long :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about making it IS_MFCV6_PLUS()?
>>
>> Technically
>> #define IS_MFCV6(dev)                (dev->variant->version >= 0x60...)
>> means all lower versions are also higher versions.
>> This may not cause much of a problem (other than the macro being a
>> misnomer) as all current higher versions are supersets of lower
>> versions.
>> But this is not guaranteed(?).
>>
>
> Till now we havent encountered otherwise and we can only hope that
> it remains like this :)
>
>
>> Hence changing the definition of the macro to (dev->variant->version
>>>= 0x60 && dev->variant->version < 0x70) as Kamil suggested or
>> renaming it to
>> IS_MFCV6_PLUS() makes sense.
>>
>> OTOH, do we really have intermediate version numbers? For e.g. 0x61, 0x72, 
>> etc?
>>
>> If not we can make it just:
>> #define IS_MFCV6(dev)                (dev->variant->version == 0x60 ? 1 : 0)
>>
>
> The v6 version we use is actually v6.5 and v7 is v7.2.
> In mainline we havent used any FW sub-versions yet.

OK. Do they co-exist or is there a possibility for that (to have v6.5
and say v6.7 or v7.2 and v7.4, etc). Just asking.


-- 
With warm regards,
Sachin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to