Re: [PATCH RFC 06/15] media: qcom: camss: vfe: Add support for VFE 1190

[Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>]

On 23/09/2026 12:02, Nihal Kumar Gupta wrote:
> drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss-vfe-gen4.c

So I'd like to completely drop the genX.c stuff it is not descriptive.

For example:


diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss-vfe-gen3.c 
b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss-vfe-gen3.c
index 93d16b0951e99..f2001140ead12 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss-vfe-gen3.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss/camss-vfe-gen3.c
@@ -12,13 +12,43 @@
  #include "camss.h"
  #include "camss-vfe.h"

-#define BUS_REG_BASE                   (vfe_is_lite(vfe) ? 0x200 : 0xC00)
+#define IS_VFE_690(vfe) \
+           (vfe->camss->res->version == CAMSS_8775P)
+
+#define BUS_REG_BASE_690 \
+           (vfe_is_lite(vfe) ? 0x480 : 0x400)
+#define BUS_REG_BASE_780 \
+           (vfe_is_lite(vfe) ? 0x200 : 0xC00)
+#define BUS_REG_BASE \
+           (IS_VFE_690(vfe) ? BUS_REG_BASE_690 : BUS_REG_BASE_780)
+
+#define VFE_TOP_CORE_CFG (0x24)
+#define VFE_DISABLE_DSCALING_DS4  BIT(21)
+#define VFE_DISABLE_DSCALING_DS16 BIT(22)
+
+#define VFE_BUS_WM_TEST_BUS_CTRL_690 (BUS_REG_BASE + 0xFC)
+#define VFE_BUS_WM_TEST_BUS_CTRL_780 (BUS_REG_BASE + 0xDC)
+#define VFE_BUS_WM_TEST_BUS_CTRL \
+           (IS_VFE_690(vfe) ? VFE_BUS_WM_TEST_BUS_CTRL_690 \
+            : VFE_BUS_WM_TEST_BUS_CTRL_780)
+/*
+ * Bus client mapping:
+ *
+ * Full VFE:
+ * VFE_690: 16 = RDI0, 17 = RDI1, 18 = RDI2
+ * VFE_780: 23 = RDI0, 24 = RDI1, 25 = RDI2
+ *
+ * VFE LITE:
+ * VFE_690 : 0 = RDI0, 1 = RDI1, 2 = RDI2, 3 = RDI3, 4 = RDI4, 5 = RDI5
+ * VFE_780 : 0 = RDI0, 1 = RDI1, 2 = RDI2, 3 = RDI3, 4 = RDI4
+ */
+#define RDI_WM_690(n)  ((vfe_is_lite(vfe) ? 0x0 : 0x10) + (n))
+#define RDI_WM_780(n)  ((vfe_is_lite(vfe) ? 0x0 : 0x17) + (n))
+#define RDI_WM(n)      (IS_VFE_690(vfe) ? RDI_WM_690(n) : RDI_WM_780(n))

In other words VFE 690 and VFE 780/880 don't share the same write-master 
index.

So they aren't the same silicon.

I'll go and find the Kaanapali thread but the feedback here will apply 
there.

Name the files per their silicon version not some genX.c moniker, please.

It _looks_ like 690 and 780 will need to be separated so, I'd like to 
move away from this misleading genX notation - it may mean things to 
qcom but I feel we are burying inappropriate hacks inside of convenient 
gen files.

---
bod