From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
linux.walleij@linaro.org,
prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com,
heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com,
kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com,
jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org, robh@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, pmladek@suse.com, mchehab@kernel.org,
tian.shu.qiu@intel.com, bingbu.cao@intel.com,
sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com, yong.zhi@intel.com,
rafael@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kitakar@gmail.com,
dan.carpenter@oracle.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 9/9] ipu3-cio2: Add functionality allowing software_node connections to sensors on platforms designed for Windows
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 12:41:13 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201020094113.GG4077@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201019225903.14276-10-djrscally@gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:59:03PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:
> Currently on platforms designed for Windows, connections between CIO2 and
> sensors are not properly defined in DSDT. This patch extends the ipu3-cio2
> driver to compensate by building software_node connections, parsing the
> connection properties from the sensor's SSDB buffer.
...
> + - Some Microsoft Surface models
Perhaps an example? Like '(e.g. Surface Book)'
> + - The Lenovo Miix line
Ditto.
> + - Dell 7285
...
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/fwnode.h>
This is implied by property.h, no need to have an explicit inclusion.
> +#include <linux/i2c.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/pci.h>
> +#include <linux/property.h>
> +#include <media/v4l2-subdev.h>
...
> +static const char * const port_names[] = {
> + "port0", "port1", "port2", "port3"
+ comma.
> +};
...
> +static int read_acpi_block(struct device *dev, char *id, void *data, u32 size)
> +{
> + struct acpi_buffer buffer = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
> + struct acpi_handle *handle;
> + union acpi_object *obj;
> + acpi_status status;
> + int ret;
> +
> + handle = ACPI_HANDLE(dev);
> +
> + status = acpi_evaluate_object(handle, id, NULL, &buffer);
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + obj = buffer.pointer;
> + if (!obj) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Couldn't locate ACPI buffer\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + if (obj->type != ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Couldn't read ACPI buffer\n");
"not an ACPI buffer"
> + ret = -ENODEV;
> + goto out_free_buff;
> + }
> +
> + if (obj->buffer.length > size) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Given buffer is too small\n");
> + ret = -ENODEV;
-EINVAL?
> + goto out_free_buff;
> + }
> +
> + memcpy(data, obj->buffer.pointer, obj->buffer.length);
> + ret = obj->buffer.length;
> +
> +out_free_buff:
> + kfree(buffer.pointer);
> + return ret;
> +}
...
> + /* device fwnode properties */
> + memset(dev_properties, 0, sizeof(struct property_entry) * 3);
3 -> sizeof(...) ?
Same Q to other similar cases.
...
> + sensor->data_lanes = kmalloc_array(ssdb->lanes, sizeof(u32),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
Perhaps one line?
> +
Redundant blank line.
> + if (!sensor->data_lanes)
> + return -ENOMEM;
...
> +static int connect_supported_devices(struct pci_dev *cio2)
> +{
> + struct sensor_bios_data ssdb;
> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> + struct acpi_device *adev;
> + struct sensor *sensor;
> + struct device *dev;
> + int i, ret;
> +
> + ret = 0;
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(supported_devices); i++) {
> + adev = acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev(supported_devices[i], NULL, -1);
> + if (!adev)
> + continue;
> +
> + dev = bus_find_device_by_acpi_dev(&i2c_bus_type, adev);
> + if (!dev) {
> + ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> + goto err_rollback;
> + }
> +
> + sensor = &bridge.sensors[bridge.n_sensors];
> + sensor->dev = dev;
> + sensor->adev = adev;
> + snprintf(sensor->name, ACPI_ID_LEN, "%s",
> + supported_devices[i]);
One line?
> + ret = get_acpi_ssdb_sensor_data(dev, &ssdb);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_free_dev;
> +
> + ret = create_fwnode_properties(sensor, &ssdb);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_free_dev;
> +
> + ret = create_connection_swnodes(sensor, &ssdb);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_free_dev;
> +
> + ret = software_node_register_nodes(sensor->swnodes);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_free_dev;
> +
> + fwnode = software_node_fwnode(&sensor->swnodes[SWNODE_SENSOR_HID]);
> + if (!fwnode) {
> + ret = -ENODEV;
> + goto err_free_swnodes;
> + }
> +
> + set_secondary_fwnode(dev, fwnode);
> + dev_info(&cio2->dev, "Found supported device %s\n",
> + supported_devices[i]);
One line?
(In both cases you can use temporary variable to keep supported_devices[i])
> + bridge.n_sensors++;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +
> +err_free_swnodes:
> + software_node_unregister_nodes_reverse(sensor->swnodes);
> +err_free_dev:
> + put_device(dev);
> +err_rollback:
> + acpi_dev_put(adev);
> +
> + /*
> + * If an iteration of this loop results in -EPROBE_DEFER then
> + * we need to roll back any sensors that were successfully
> + * registered. Any other error and we'll skip that step, as
> + * it seems better to have one successfully connected sensor.
> + */
> +
> + if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + cio2_bridge_unregister_sensors();
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +int cio2_bridge_build(struct pci_dev *cio2)
> +{
struct device *dev = &cio2->dev;
will help to clean the code below.
> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> + int ret;
> +
> + pci_dev_get(cio2);
> +
> + ret = software_node_register(&cio2_hid_node);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(&cio2->dev, "Failed to register the CIO2 HID node\n");
> + goto err_put_cio2;
> + }
> +
> + ret = connect_supported_devices(cio2);
> + if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + goto err_unregister_cio2;
> +
> + if (bridge.n_sensors == 0) {
> + ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> + goto err_unregister_cio2;
> + }
> +
> + dev_info(&cio2->dev, "Connected %d cameras\n", bridge.n_sensors);
> +
> + fwnode = software_node_fwnode(&cio2_hid_node);
> + if (!fwnode) {
> + dev_err(&cio2->dev,
> + "Error getting fwnode from cio2 software_node\n");
One line (after above change)
> + ret = -ENODEV;
> + goto err_unregister_sensors;
> + }
> +
> + set_secondary_fwnode(&cio2->dev, fwnode);
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +err_unregister_sensors:
> + cio2_bridge_unregister_sensors();
> +err_unregister_cio2:
> + software_node_unregister(&cio2_hid_node);
> +err_put_cio2:
> + pci_dev_put(cio2);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +void cio2_bridge_burn(struct pci_dev *cio2)
> +{
> + pci_dev_put(cio2);
> +
> + cio2_bridge_unregister_sensors();
> +
> + software_node_unregister(&cio2_hid_node);
> +}
I would rather name them like
build -> init / register / ...
burn -> clean / unregister / ...
...
> +#ifndef __CIO2_BRIDGE_H
> +#define __CIO2_BRIDGE_H
Missed inclusion that defines struct software_nodes type.
And so on. This file is consumer of some types and you need either to include
corresponding headers, or provide a forward declarations (for example, no need
to include device.h or acpi.h AFAICS).
> +#define MAX_CONNECTED_DEVICES 4
> +#define SWNODE_SENSOR_HID 0
> +#define SWNODE_SENSOR_PORT 1
> +#define SWNODE_SENSOR_ENDPOINT 2
> +#define SWNODE_CIO2_PORT 3
> +#define SWNODE_CIO2_ENDPOINT 4
> +#define SWNODE_NULL_TERMINATOR 5
> +
> +#define CIO2_HID "INT343E"
> +#define CIO2_PCI_ID 0x9d32
> +
> +#define ENDPOINT_SENSOR 0
> +#define ENDPOINT_CIO2 1
> +
> +#define NODE_SENSOR(_HID, _PROPS) \
> + ((const struct software_node) { \
> + .name = _HID, \
> + .properties = _PROPS, \
> + })
> +
> +#define NODE_PORT(_PORT, _SENSOR_NODE) \
> + ((const struct software_node) { \
> + _PORT, \
> + _SENSOR_NODE, \
> + })
> +
> +#define NODE_ENDPOINT(_EP, _PORT, _PROPS) \
> + ((const struct software_node) { \
> + _EP, \
> + _PORT, \
> + _PROPS, \
> + })
> +
> +struct sensor {
> + char name[ACPI_ID_LEN];
> + struct device *dev;
> + struct acpi_device *adev;
> + struct software_node swnodes[6];
> + struct property_entry dev_properties[3];
> + struct property_entry ep_properties[4];
> + struct property_entry cio2_properties[3];
> + u32 *data_lanes;
> +};
> +
> +struct cio2_bridge {
> + int n_sensors;
> + struct sensor sensors[MAX_CONNECTED_DEVICES];
> +};
> +
> +/* Data representation as it is in ACPI SSDB buffer */
> +struct sensor_bios_data_packed {
> + u8 version;
> + u8 sku;
> + u8 guid_csi2[16];
> + u8 devfunction;
> + u8 bus;
> + u32 dphylinkenfuses;
> + u32 clockdiv;
> + u8 link;
> + u8 lanes;
> + u32 csiparams[10];
> + u32 maxlanespeed;
> + u8 sensorcalibfileidx;
> + u8 sensorcalibfileidxInMBZ[3];
> + u8 romtype;
> + u8 vcmtype;
> + u8 platforminfo;
> + u8 platformsubinfo;
> + u8 flash;
> + u8 privacyled;
> + u8 degree;
> + u8 mipilinkdefined;
> + u32 mclkspeed;
> + u8 controllogicid;
> + u8 reserved1[3];
> + u8 mclkport;
> + u8 reserved2[13];
> +} __packed__;
> +
> +/* Fields needed by bridge driver */
> +struct sensor_bios_data {
> + struct device *dev;
> + u8 link;
> + u8 lanes;
> + u8 degree;
> + u32 mclkspeed;
> +};
...
> + /*
> + * On some platforms no connections to sensors are defined in firmware,
> + * if the device has no endpoints then we can try to build those as
> + * software_nodes parsed from SSDB.
> + *
> + * This may EPROBE_DEFER if supported devices are found defined in ACPI
> + * but not yet ready for use (either not attached to the i2c bus yet,
> + * or not done probing themselves).
> + */
> +
> + endpoint = fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint(dev_fwnode(&pci_dev->dev), NULL);
> + if (!endpoint) {
> + r = cio2_bridge_build(pci_dev);
> + if (r)
> + return r;
> + }
> +
> cio2 = devm_kzalloc(&pci_dev->dev, sizeof(*cio2), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!cio2)
> return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -1825,6 +1843,9 @@ static void cio2_pci_remove(struct pci_dev *pci_dev)
> {
> struct cio2_device *cio2 = pci_get_drvdata(pci_dev);
> + if (is_software_node(dev_fwnode(&pci_dev->dev)))
Can we use the same check as for _build call above?
> + cio2_bridge_burn(pci_dev);
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-20 9:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-19 22:58 [RFC PATCH v3 0/9] Add functionality to ipu3-cio2 driver allowing software_node connections to sensors on platforms designed for Windows Daniel Scally
2020-10-19 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] software_node: Add helper function to unregister arrays of software_nodes ordered parent to child Daniel Scally
2020-10-20 9:22 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-20 10:05 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-20 11:01 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-20 11:02 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-20 11:04 ` Heikki Krogerus
2020-10-20 22:52 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-21 9:40 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-21 9:54 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-19 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/9] lib/test_printf.c: Use helper function to unwind array of software_nodes Daniel Scally
2020-10-20 7:23 ` Petr Mladek
2020-10-20 9:20 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-19 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/9] software_node: Fix failure to hold refcount in software_node_get_next_child Daniel Scally
2020-10-20 12:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-20 13:31 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-20 23:25 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-21 9:33 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-21 9:37 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-21 9:56 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-19 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/9] software_node: Add support for fwnode_graph*() family of functions Daniel Scally
2020-10-20 9:17 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-20 12:35 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-20 13:32 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-19 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v3 5/9] ipu3-cio2: Add T: entry to MAINTAINERS Daniel Scally
2020-10-20 9:16 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-24 0:28 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-10-19 22:59 ` [RFC PATCH v3 6/9] ipu3-cio2: Rename ipu3-cio2.c to allow module to be built from multiple sources files retaining ipu3-cio2 name Daniel Scally
2020-10-20 9:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-20 20:41 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-24 0:34 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-10-19 22:59 ` [RFC PATCH v3 7/9] ipu3-cio2: Check if pci_dev->dev's fwnode is a software_node in cio2_parse_firmware() and set FWNODE_GRAPH_DEVICE_DISABLED if so Daniel Scally
2020-10-20 9:19 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-20 12:06 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-20 19:56 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-20 22:49 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-20 22:55 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-24 0:39 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-10-24 14:29 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-24 16:33 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-24 16:55 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-10-19 22:59 ` [RFC PATCH v3 8/9] media: v4l2-core: v4l2-async: Check possible match in match_fwnode based on sd->fwnode->secondary Daniel Scally
2020-10-19 22:59 ` [RFC PATCH v3 9/9] ipu3-cio2: Add functionality allowing software_node connections to sensors on platforms designed for Windows Daniel Scally
2020-10-20 9:41 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2020-10-21 22:05 ` Daniel Scally
2020-10-22 13:40 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-23 10:06 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-24 1:24 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-10-24 8:50 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-24 9:37 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-10-24 22:28 ` Daniel Scally
2020-10-24 22:36 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-10-24 22:50 ` Daniel Scally
2020-10-26 8:20 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-26 16:05 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-29 20:17 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-10-29 22:36 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-26 16:10 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-29 20:19 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-10-29 20:26 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-29 21:29 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-10-29 22:22 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-29 22:51 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-11-13 10:02 ` Dan Scally
2020-11-13 16:22 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-11-13 19:45 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-11-15 8:45 ` Daniel Scally
2020-11-16 8:53 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-11-16 13:57 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-11-16 14:10 ` Laurent Pinchart
2020-11-16 14:15 ` Dan Scally
2020-11-16 16:16 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-11-17 12:01 ` Dan Scally
2020-11-17 16:42 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-11-17 22:59 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-24 15:11 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-24 15:14 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-24 20:28 ` Dan Scally
2020-10-25 11:18 ` Sakari Ailus
2020-10-20 9:24 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/9] Add functionality to ipu3-cio2 driver " Andy Shevchenko
2020-10-20 13:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-21 20:59 ` Daniel Scally
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=20201020094113.GG4077@smile.fi.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bingbu.cao@intel.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=djrscally@gmail.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org \
--cc=kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=kitakar@gmail.com \
--cc=laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=tian.shu.qiu@intel.com \
--cc=yong.zhi@intel.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).