From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from out20-86.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.20.86]:56609 "EHLO out20-86.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753057AbdHWCc4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 22:32:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:32:16 +0800 From: Yong To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Chen-Yu Tsai , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "David S. Miller" , Hans Verkuil , Arnd Bergmann , Hugues Fruchet , Yannick Fertre , Philipp Zabel , Benoit Parrot , Benjamin Gaignard , Jean-Christophe Trotin , Ramesh Shanmugasundaram , Minghsiu Tsai , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Robert Jarzmik , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] media: V3s: Add support for Allwinner CSI. Message-Id: <20170823103216.e43283308c195c4a80d929fa@magewell.com> In-Reply-To: <20170822174339.6woauylgzkgqxygk@flea.lan> References: <1501131697-1359-1-git-send-email-yong.deng@magewell.com> <1501131697-1359-2-git-send-email-yong.deng@magewell.com> <20170728160233.xooevio4hoqkgfaq@flea.lan> <20170731111640.d5a8e580a48183cfce85943d@magewell.com> <20170822174339.6woauylgzkgqxygk@flea.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:39 +0200 Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Yong, > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:16:40AM +0800, Yong wrote: > > > > @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ source "drivers/media/platform/am437x/Kconfig" > > > > source "drivers/media/platform/xilinx/Kconfig" > > > > source "drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/Kconfig" > > > > source "drivers/media/platform/atmel/Kconfig" > > > > +source "drivers/media/platform/sun6i-csi/Kconfig" > > > > > > We're going to have several different drivers in v4l eventually, so I > > > guess it would make sense to move to a directory of our own. > > > > Like this? > > drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi > > Yep. > > > > > +static int sun6i_graph_notify_complete(struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct sun6i_csi *csi = > > > > + container_of(notifier, struct sun6i_csi, notifier); > > > > + struct sun6i_graph_entity *entity; > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > + dev_dbg(csi->dev, "notify complete, all subdevs registered\n"); > > > > + > > > > + /* Create links for every entity. */ > > > > + list_for_each_entry(entity, &csi->entities, list) { > > > > + ret = sun6i_graph_build_one(csi, entity); > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > + return ret; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + /* Create links for video node. */ > > > > + ret = sun6i_graph_build_video(csi); > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > Can you elaborate a bit on the difference between a node parsed with > > > _graph_build_one and _graph_build_video? Can't you just store the > > > remote sensor when you build the notifier, and reuse it here? > > > > There maybe many usercases: > > 1. CSI->Sensor. > > 2. CSI->MIPI->Sensor. > > 3. CSI->FPGA->Sensor1 > > ->Sensor2. > > FPGA maybe some other video processor. FPGA, MIPI, Sensor can be > > registered as v4l2 subdevs. We do not care about the driver code > > of them. But they should be linked together here. > > > > So, the _graph_build_one is used to link CSI port and subdevs. > > _graph_build_video is used to link CSI port and video node. > > So the graph_build_one is for the two first cases, and the > _build_video for the latter case? No. The _graph_build_one is used to link the subdevs found in the device tree. _build_video is used to link the closest subdev to video node. Video node is created in the driver, so the method to get it's pad is diffrent to the subdevs. > > If so, you should take a look at the last iteration of the > subnotifiers rework by Nikas Söderlund (v4l2-async: add subnotifier > registration for subdevices). > > It allows subdevs to register notifiers, and you don't have to build > the graph from the video device, each device and subdev can only care > about what's next in the pipeline, but not really what's behind it. > > That would mean in your case that you can only deal with your single > CSI pad, and whatever subdev driver will use it care about its own. Do you mean the subdevs create pad link in the notifier registered by themself ? If so, _graph_build_one is needless. But how to make sure the pipeline has linked correctly when operateing the pipeline. I will lookt at this in more detail. > > > This part is also difficult to understand for me. The one CSI module > > have only one DMA channel(single port). But thay can be linked to > > different physical port (Parallel or MIPI)(multiple ep) by IF select > > register. > > > > For now, the binding can have several ep, the driver will just pick > > the first valid one. > > Yeah, I'm not really sure how we could deal with that, but I guess we > can do it later on. > > > > > > > > +struct sun6i_csi_ops { > > > > + int (*get_supported_pixformats)(struct sun6i_csi *csi, > > > > + const u32 **pixformats); > > > > + bool (*is_format_support)(struct sun6i_csi *csi, u32 pixformat, > > > > + u32 mbus_code); > > > > + int (*s_power)(struct sun6i_csi *csi, bool enable); > > > > + int (*update_config)(struct sun6i_csi *csi, > > > > + struct sun6i_csi_config *config); > > > > + int (*update_buf_addr)(struct sun6i_csi *csi, dma_addr_t addr); > > > > + int (*s_stream)(struct sun6i_csi *csi, bool enable); > > > > +}; > > > > > > Didn't we agreed on removing those in the first iteration? It's not > > > really clear at this point whether they will be needed at all. Make > > > something simple first, without those ops. When we'll support other > > > SoCs we'll have a better chance at seeing what and how we should deal > > > with potential quirks. > > > > OK. But without ops, it is inappropriate to sun6i_csi and sun6i_csi. > > Maybe I should merge the two files. > > I'm not sure what you meant here, but if you think that's appropriate, > please go ahead. > > > > > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + if (status & CSI_CH_INT_STA_FD_PD) { > > > > + sun6i_video_frame_done(&sdev->csi.video); > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + regmap_write(regmap, CSI_CH_INT_STA_REG, status); > > > > > > Isn't it redundant with the one you did in the condition a bit above? > > > > > > You should also check that your device indeed generated an > > > interrupt. In the occurence of a spourious interrupt, your code will > > > return IRQ_HANDLED, which is the wrong thing to do. > > > > > > I think you should reverse your logic a bit here to make this > > > easier. You should just check that your status flags are indeed set, > > > and if not just bail out and return IRQ_NONE. > > > > > > And if they are, go on with treating your interrupt. > > > > OK. I will add check for status flags. > > BTW, how can a spurious interrupt occurred? > > Usually it's either through some interference, or some poorly designed > controller. This is unlikely, but it's something you should take into > account. > > Thanks! > Maxime > > -- > Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > http://free-electrons.com Thanks, Yong