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
