All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
	Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org>
Cc: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>,
	niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se, geert@linux-m68k.org,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] media: i2c: rdacm20: Replace goto with a loop
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:56:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <517b3ef0-cead-0107-1c7b-91eec658bd66@ideasonboard.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YDa2qh4onPRSHlXq@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>

On 24/02/2021 20:27, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 04:06:43PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 03:05:03AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> Hi Jacopo,
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 01:01:26PM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>>>> On 16/02/2021 17:41, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
>>>>> During the camera module initialization the image sensor PID is read to
>>>>> verify it can correctly be identified. The current implementation is
>>>>> rather confused and uses a loop implemented with a label and a goto.
>>>>>
>>>>> Replace it with a more compact for() loop.
>>>>>
>>>>> No functional changes intended.
>>>>
>>>> I think there is a functional change in here, but I almost like it.
>>>>
>>>> Before, if the read was successful, it would check to see if the
>>>> OV10635_PID == OV10635_VERSION, and if not it would print that the read
>>>> was successful but a mismatch.
>>>>
>>>> Now - it will retry again instead, and if at the end of the retries it
>>>> still fails then it's a failure.
>>>>
>>>> This means we perhaps don't get told if the device id is not correct in
>>>> the same way, but it also means that if the VERSION was not correct
>>>> because of a read error (which I believe i've seen occur), it will retry.

So - to be clear here, I meant a 'read error', as in perhaps a
one-bit-flip or something else, not an error detected and propogated by
the I2C controllers.

I.e. ... something happening on the bus that gives a different result
but the 'read' was successful.... it's just that it returns a different
value than expected.

Given our noisy bus, not certain bus speeds, etc etc, I believe this can
happen.


>>>
>>> I was going to ask about that, whether we can have a successful I2C read
>>> operation that would return incorrect data. If we do, aren't we screwed
>>> ? If there's a non-negligible probability that reads will return
>>> incorrect data without any way to know about it (for other registers
>>> than the version register of course), then I would consider that writes
>>> could fail the same way, and that would mean an unusable device,
>>> wouldn't it ?
>>>
>>> If, on the other hand, read failures can always (or nearly always,
>>> ignoring space neutrinos and similar niceties) be detected, then I think
>>> we should avoid the functional change.
>>>
>>>> Because there is a functional change you might want to update the
>>>> commit, but I still think this is a good change overall.
>>
>> I'm not sure I got your concerns to be honest :/
>> yes before the code flow was like
>>
>>         ret = ov10635_read();
>>         if (ret < 0) {
>>
>>         }
>>
>>         if (ret != PID) {
>>

And so here you might have had a 'successful' read of the wrong value,
which means that ret > 0 but != PID.

>>         }
>>
>> But the condition ret != PID implied ret < 0 so I don't really get
>> what changes, apart from the fact that in the previous version we
>> could have had two different error messages for the same issue, and yes,
>> I saw ID mistmatch happening but the value of knowing the i2c read
>> didn't fail but the read data was garbage (usually it's 0x01 when it
>> fails iirc) is, well, questionable.
> 
> That's worrying :-S May we should add a warning message when the read
> succeeds but the ID doesn't match, to at least have a way to track the
> issue, and see if other changes get rid of this problem ?
> 

Ok, now I'm confused, that's what I was talking about!

Before we did do this, and now we don't. Ergo - functional change.


>> I'm sorry I didn't fully get this comment.
> 
> You're right, I had missed that the current code retried in case of a
> version number mismatch. There's no functional change.

I still think there's a functional change, but I'm not all too worried
about it.

As I said before, I think it's worth the retry in that event, which
didn't happen before, so my tag still holds.


> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> 
>>>> Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/media/i2c/rdacm20.c | 27 ++++++++++-----------------
>>>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm20.c b/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm20.c
>>>>> index 4d9bac87cba8..6504ed0bd3bc 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm20.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm20.c
>>>>> @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@
>>>>>   */
>>>>>  #define OV10635_PIXEL_RATE		(44000000)
>>>>>
>>>>> +#define OV10635_PID_TIMEOUT		3
>>>>> +
>>>>>  static const struct ov10635_reg {
>>>>>  	u16	reg;
>>>>>  	u8	val;
>>>>> @@ -452,7 +454,7 @@ static const struct v4l2_subdev_ops rdacm20_subdev_ops = {
>>>>>
>>>>>  static int rdacm20_initialize(struct rdacm20_device *dev)
>>>>>  {
>>>>> -	unsigned int retry = 3;
>>>>> +	unsigned int i;
>>>>>  	int ret;
>>>>>
>>>>>  	/* Verify communication with the MAX9271: ping to wakeup. */
>>>>> @@ -501,23 +503,14 @@ static int rdacm20_initialize(struct rdacm20_device *dev)
>>>>>  		return ret;
>>>>>  	usleep_range(10000, 15000);
>>>>>
>>>>> -again:
>>>>> -	ret = ov10635_read16(dev, OV10635_PID);
>>>>> -	if (ret < 0) {
>>>>> -		if (retry--)
>>>>> -			goto again;
>>>>> -
>>>>> -		dev_err(dev->dev, "OV10635 ID read failed (%d)\n",
>>>>> -			ret);
>>>>> -		return -ENXIO;
>>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < OV10635_PID_TIMEOUT; ++i) {
>>>>> +		ret = ov10635_read16(dev, OV10635_PID);
>>>>> +		if (ret == OV10635_VERSION)
>>>>> +			break;
>>>>> +		usleep_range(1000, 2000);
>>>>>  	}
>>>>> -
>>>>> -	if (ret != OV10635_VERSION) {
>>>>> -		if (retry--)
>>>>> -			goto again;
>>>>> -
>>>>> -		dev_err(dev->dev, "OV10635 ID mismatch (0x%04x)\n",
>>>>> -			ret);
>>>>> +	if (i == OV10635_PID_TIMEOUT) {
>>>>> +		dev_err(dev->dev, "OV10635 ID read failed (%d)\n", ret);
>>>>>  		return -ENXIO;
>>>>>  	}
>>>>>
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-25  8:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-16 17:41 [PATCH 00/16] media: i2c: GMSL reliability improvements Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 01/16] media: i2c: rdacm20: Enable noise immunity Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17 12:55   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  0:49     ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-22 14:59       ` Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-24 20:35         ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 02/16] media: i2c: rdacm20: Embedded 'serializer' field Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17 12:56   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  0:58   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 03/16] media: i2c: rdacm20: Replace goto with a loop Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17 13:01   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:05     ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-22 15:06       ` Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-24 20:27         ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-25  8:56           ` Kieran Bingham [this message]
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 04/16] media: i2c: rdacm20: Report camera module name Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17 13:02   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:06   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 05/16] media: i2c: rdacm20: Check return values Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17 13:08   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:09   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-22 15:08     ` Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 06/16] media: i2c: rdacm20: Re-work ov10635 reset Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17 13:22   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:15   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 07/16] media: i2c: rdacm2x: Fix wake up delay Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17  8:02   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-17 13:33   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:18     ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-22 15:11       ` Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-24 20:29         ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 08/16] media: i2c: max9286: Adjust parameters indent Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17 13:36   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:20   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 09/16] media: i2c: rdacm21: Re-work OV10640 initialization Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17  8:06   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-17 13:55   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:27   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-22 15:19     ` Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-24 20:30       ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 10/16] media: i2c: max9286: Rename reverse_channel_mv Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17  8:07   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-18 15:06   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:29   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 11/16] media: i2c: max9286: Cache channel amplitude Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17  8:08   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-18 15:39   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:33   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 12/16] media: i2c: max9286: Define high " Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-18 15:39   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:35   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 13/16] media: i2c: rdacm2x: Implement .init() subdev op Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17  8:17   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-18 16:13   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  1:52     ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 14/16] media: i2c: max9286: Initialize remotes when bound Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17  8:19   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-18 16:00   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  2:03   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 15/16] media: i2c: max9286: Rework comments in .bound() Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-18 16:03   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-16 17:41 ` [PATCH 16/16] media: i2c: gmsl: Use 339Kbps I2C bit-rate Jacopo Mondi
2021-02-17  8:19   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-02-18 16:07   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-02-22  2:06     ` Laurent Pinchart

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=517b3ef0-cead-0107-1c7b-91eec658bd66@ideasonboard.com \
    --to=kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org \
    --cc=jacopo@jmondi.org \
    --cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
    --cc=niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 03/16] media: i2c: rdacm20: Replace goto with a loop' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.