On 7/9/24 19:06, Depeng Shao wrote:
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx> Adding a new CSIPHY init sequence using downstream as a reference prompted me to look at why we are splitting up the init sequence into chunks. Right now we declare CSI PHY init sequences as an array of five equally sized writes with a hard-coded control loop to iterate through each of the five indexes. One bug in this model is that if you don't have an even number of writes, you can't init the PHY as you wish. In downstream the original code has something of the character phy_init_seq[MAX_LANES][MAX_PARAMS] which in upstream we have translated into phy_init_seq[5][SOME_NUMBER_OF_EQUAL_WRITES]; What the code does is take a pointer to the first index of the r = &phy_init_seq[0][0]; and then literally does write(r, value); r++; The controlling loop that hard-codes '5' in-lieu of MAX_LANES does no special sleep, fabric-coherence sync or even a printk() to justify its existence. Our compilers are optimising all of this away anyway so lets drop. Reduce the array declaration down to one flat aggregate init and let the code just step through. As a happy side-effect we can then also handle odd-number writes as the number of elements in the init sequence will no longer have to be evenly divisible. Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Depeng Shao <quic_depengs@xxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Best wishes, Vladimir
