At the moment we have some complex code for determining if a VFE requires a
power-domain attachment. Particularly discordant in this scheme is the
subtle reliance on VFE and VFE Lite declaration ordering in our resources.
VFE id is used to determine if a VFE is lite or not and consequently if a
VFE requires power-domain attachment. VFE Lite though is not a correct
delineation between power-domain and non power-domain state since early
SoCs have neither VFE Lite nor power-domains attached to VFEs.
Introduce has_pd to the VFE resource structure to allow the CAMSS code to
understand if it needs to try to attach a power-domain for a given VFE.
As a side-effect from this we no longer need to care about VFE Lite or
non-Lite or the id number associated with either and which order the
VFE/VFE Lite was declared in.
Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Matti Lehtimäki <matti.lehtimaki@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>
.reg = { "vfe0" },
.interrupt = { "vfe0" },
.line_num = 3,
+ .has_pd = true,
.ops = &vfe_ops_4_7
},
.reg = { "vfe1" },
.interrupt = { "vfe1" },
.line_num = 3,
+ .has_pd = true,
.ops = &vfe_ops_4_7
}
};
.reg = { "vfe0" },
.interrupt = { "vfe0" },
.line_num = 3,
+ .has_pd = true,
.ops = &vfe_ops_4_8
},
.reg = { "vfe1" },
.interrupt = { "vfe1" },
.line_num = 3,
+ .has_pd = true,
.ops = &vfe_ops_4_8
}
};
.reg = { "vfe0" },
.interrupt = { "vfe0" },
.line_num = 4,
+ .has_pd = true,
.ops = &vfe_ops_170
},
.reg = { "vfe1" },
.interrupt = { "vfe1" },
.line_num = 4,
+ .has_pd = true,
.ops = &vfe_ops_170
},
.reg = { "vfe0" },
.interrupt = { "vfe0" },
.line_num = 3,
+ .has_pd = true,
.ops = &vfe_ops_480
},
/* VFE1 */
.reg = { "vfe1" },
.interrupt = { "vfe1" },
.line_num = 3,
+ .has_pd = true,
.ops = &vfe_ops_480
},
/* VFE2 (lite) */
char *reg[CAMSS_RES_MAX];
char *interrupt[CAMSS_RES_MAX];
u8 line_num;
+ bool has_pd;
const void *ops;
};