From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39957C43465 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 07:58:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09AEF21D7B for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 07:58:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726492AbgIRH6f (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2020 03:58:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51744 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726413AbgIRH6e (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2020 03:58:34 -0400 Received: from hillosipuli.retiisi.org.uk (hillosipuli.retiisi.org.uk [IPv6:2a01:4f9:c010:4572::81:2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85C94C06174A; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valkosipuli.localdomain (valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk [IPv6:2a01:4f9:c010:4572::80:2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hillosipuli.retiisi.org.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CDAC634C89; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:57:41 +0300 (EEST) Received: from sailus by valkosipuli.localdomain with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kJBH3-00024x-Dp; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:57:41 +0300 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:57:41 +0300 From: Sakari Ailus To: Dan Scally Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com, jorhand@linux.microsoft.com, kitakar@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] software_node: Add support for fwnode_graph*() family of functions Message-ID: <20200918075741.GS834@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> References: <20200915232827.3416-1-djrscally@gmail.com> <20200916091707.GL834@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> <7b81d743-736d-62d1-7072-d08759a0d5d7@gmail.com> <20200918062237.GP834@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> <294db5cf-4c95-d56c-0a42-60ca95393c06@gmail.com> <20200918073433.GR834@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> <9cdd8073-430b-773a-6aa7-4698110a5416@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9cdd8073-430b-773a-6aa7-4698110a5416@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 08:46:52AM +0100, Dan Scally wrote: > On 18/09/2020 08:34, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 07:49:31AM +0100, Dan Scally wrote: > >> Good morning > >> > >> On 18/09/2020 07:22, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >>> Hi Dan, > >>> > >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:22:10PM +0100, Dan Scally wrote: > >>>> Hi Sakari - thanks for the comments > >>>> > >>>> On 16/09/2020 10:17, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >>>>> Moi Daniel and Heikki, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:28:27AM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > >>>>>> From: Heikki Krogerus > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This implements the remaining .graph_* callbacks in the > >>>>>> fwnode operations vector for the software nodes. That makes > >>>>>> the fwnode_graph*() functions available in the drivers also > >>>>>> when software nodes are used. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The implementation tries to mimic the "OF graph" as much as > >>>>>> possible, but there is no support for the "reg" device > >>>>>> property. The ports will need to have the index in their > >>>>>> name which starts with "port" (for example "port0", "port1", > >>>>>> ...) and endpoints will use the index of the software node > >>>>>> that is given to them during creation. The port nodes can > >>>>>> also be grouped under a specially named "ports" subnode, > >>>>>> just like in DT, if necessary. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The remote-endpoints are reference properties under the > >>>>>> endpoint nodes that are named "remote-endpoint". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus > >>>>>> Co-developed-by: Daniel Scally > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Scally > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> changes in v2: > >>>>>> - added software_node_device_is_available > >>>>>> - altered software_node_get_next_child to get references > >>>>>> - altered software_node_get_next_endpoint to release references > >>>>>> to ports and avoid passing invalid combinations of swnodes to > >>>>>> software_node_get_next_child > >>>>>> - altered swnode_graph_find_next_port to release port rather than > >>>>>> old > >>>>>> > >>>>>> drivers/base/swnode.c | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/base/swnode.c b/drivers/base/swnode.c > >>>>>> index 010828fc785b..d69034b807e3 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/base/swnode.c > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/base/swnode.c > >>>>>> @@ -363,6 +363,11 @@ static void software_node_put(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > >>>>>> kobject_put(&swnode->kobj); > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +static bool software_node_device_is_available(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > >>>>>> +{ > >>>>>> + return is_software_node(fwnode); > >>>>> This basically tells whether the device is there. Are there software node > >>>>> based devices, i.e. do you need this? > >>>>> > >>>>> If you do really need this, then I guess this could just return true for > >>>>> now as if you somehow get here, the node is a software node anyway. > >>>> I do think its better to include it; I'm targeting using this with > >>>> ipu3-cio2; the cio2_parse_firmware() call there doesn't pass > >>>> FWNODE_GRAPH_DEVICE_DISABLED to fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id() so > >>> I wonder if this has something to do with replacing the device's fwnode > >>> in the cio2-bridge patch. > >>> > >>> It's the device that needs to be enabled, and it's not a software node. > >>> > >> I think it is because of that yes, but I don't see a way around it at > >> the moment - unless there's a way to attach the software_node port and > >> endpoints that cio2-bridge creates to the device's existing firmware > >> instead. > > I thought this was how it was meant to be used? > > > > The secondary field is there for this purpose. But it may be not all fwnode > > interface functions operate on fwnode->secondary? > Let me test it; it might just require some changes to > software_node_graph_get_port_parent() to check if the parent fwnode is a > secondary, and if it is to return the primary instead. Ah, indeed. I forgot this part. I wonder if it'd cause issues to return the primary if you've got the secondary swnode. Heikki, any idea? Code elsewhere (e.g. V4L2 fwnode framework + drivers) assume a device is identified by a single fwnode, not two --- currently the swnode graph function returning port parent returns the secondary so there's no match with the primary fwnode. -- Sakari Ailus