From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752575AbdBCVfD (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2017 16:35:03 -0500 Received: from nblzone-211-213.nblnetworks.fi ([83.145.211.213]:56334 "EHLO hillosipuli.retiisi.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752331AbdBCVfB (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2017 16:35:01 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 23:34:54 +0200 From: Sakari Ailus To: Pavel Machek Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com, sre@kernel.org, pali.rohar@gmail.com, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, galak@codeaurora.org, mchehab@osg.samsung.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] devicetree: Add video bus switch Message-ID: <20170203213454.GD12291@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> References: <20161023200355.GA5391@amd> <20161119232943.GF13965@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> <20161214122451.GB27011@amd> <20161222100104.GA30917@amd> <20161222133938.GA30259@amd> <20161224152031.GA8420@amd> <20170203123508.GA10286@amd> <20170203130740.GB12291@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> <20170203210610.GA18379@amd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170203210610.GA18379@amd> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Pavel, On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:06:10PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > My apologies for the delays in reviewing. Feel free to ping me in the future > > if this happens. :-) > > No problem :-). If you could review the C-code, too... that would be > nice. It should be in your inbox somewhere (and I attached it below, > without the dts part). > > > > > +Required properties > > > +=================== > > > + > > > +compatible : must contain "video-bus-switch" > > > > How generic is this? Should we have e.g. nokia,video-bus-switch? And if so, > > change the file name accordingly. > > Generic for "single GPIO controls the switch", AFAICT. But that should > be common enough... Um, yes. Then... how about: video-bus-switch-gpio? No Nokia prefix. > > > > +reg : The interface: > > > + 0 - port for image signal processor > > > + 1 - port for first camera sensor > > > + 2 - port for second camera sensor > > > > I'd say this must be pretty much specific to the one in N900. You could have > > more ports. Or you could say that ports beyond 0 are camera sensors. I guess > > this is good enough for now though, it can be changed later on with the > > source if a need arises. > > Well, I'd say that selecting between two sensors is going to be the > common case. If someone needs more than two, it will no longer be > simple GPIO, so we'll have some fixing to do. It could be two GPIOs --- that's how the GPIO I2C mux works. But I'd be surprised if someone ever uses something like that again. ;-) > > > Btw. was it still considered a problem that the endpoint properties for the > > sensors can be different? With the g_routing() pad op which is to be added, > > the ISP driver (should actually go to a framework somewhere) could parse the > > graph and find the proper endpoint there. > > I don't know about g_routing. I added g_endpoint_config method that > passes the configuration, and that seems to work for me. > > I don't see g_routing in next-20170201 . Is there place to look? I think there was a patch by Laurent to LMML quite some time ago. I suppose that set will be repicked soonish. I don't really object using g_endpoint_config() as a temporary solution; I'd like to have Laurent's opinion on that though. Another option is to wait, but we've already waited a looong time (as in total). I'll reply to the other patch containing the code. -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ailus@iki.fi XMPP: sailus@retiisi.org.uk