On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Mon October 22 2012 14:50:14 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon October 22 2012 13:08:12 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > > Hi Hans
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for reviewing the patch.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Guennadi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've reviewed this patch and I have a few questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat October 20 2012 00:20:24 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > > > > Currently bridge device drivers register devices for all subdevices
> > > > > > synchronously, tupically, during their probing. E.g. if an I2C CMOS
> > > > > > sensor
> > > > > > is attached to a video bridge device, the bridge driver will create
> > > > > > an I2C
> > > > > > device and wait for the respective I2C driver to probe. This makes
> > > > > > linking
> > > > > > of devices straight forward, but this approach cannot be used with
> > > > > > intrinsically asynchronous and unordered device registration
> > > > > > systems like
> > > > > > the Flattened Device Tree. To support such systems this patch adds
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > asynchronous subdevice registration framework to V4L2. To use it
> > > > > > respective
> > > > > > (e.g. I2C) subdevice drivers must request deferred probing as long
> > > > > > as their
> > > > > > bridge driver hasn't probed. The bridge driver during its probing
> > > > > > submits a
> > > > > > an arbitrary number of subdevice descriptor groups to the framework
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > manage. After that it can add callbacks to each of those groups to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > called at various stages during subdevice probing, e.g. after
> > > > > > completion.
> > > > > > Then the bridge driver can request single groups to be probed,
> > > > > > finish its
> > > > > > own probing and continue its video subsystem configuration from its
> > > > > > callbacks.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the purpose of allowing multiple groups?
> > > >
> > > > To support, e.g. multiple sensors connected to a single bridge.
> > >
> > > So, isn't that one group with two sensor subdevs?
> >
> > No, one group consists of all subdevices, necessary to operate a single
> > video pipeline. A simple group only contains a sensor. More complex groups
> > can contain a CSI-2 interface, a line shifter, or anything else.
>
> Why? Why would you want to wait for completion of multiple groups? You need
> all
> subdevs to be registered. If you split them up in multiple groups, then you
> have to wait until all those groups have completed, which only makes the
> bridge
> driver more complex. It adds nothing to the problem that we're trying to
> solve.
I see it differently. Firstly, there's no waiting. Secondly, you don't
need all of them. With groups as soon as one group is complete you can
start using it. If you require all your subdevices to complete their
probing before you can use anything. In fact, some subdevices might never
probe, but groups, that don't need them can be used regardless.
> > > A bridge driver has a list of subdevs. There is no concept of 'groups'.
> > > Perhaps
> > > I misunderstand?
> >
> > Well, we have a group ID, which can be used for what I'm proposing groups
> > for. At least on soc-camera we use the group ID exactly for this purpose.
> > We attach all subdevices to a V4L2 device, but assign group IDs according
> > to pipelines. Then subdevice operations only act on members of one
> > pipeline. I know that we currently don't specify precisely what that group
> > ID should be used for in general. So, this my group concept is an
> > extension of what we currently have in V4L2.
>
> How the grp_id field is used is entirely up to the bridge driver. It may not
> be used at all, it may uniquely identify each subdev, it may put each subdev
> in a particular group and perhaps a single subdev might belong to multiple
> groups. There is no standard concept of a group. It's just a simple method
> (actually, more of a hack) of allowing bridge drivers to call ops for some
> subset of the sub-devices.
Yes, I know, at least it's something that loosely indicates a group
concept in the current code:-)
> Frankly, I wonder if most of the drivers that use grp_id actually need it at
> all.
>
> Just drop the group concept, things can be simplified quite a bit without it.
So far I think we should keep it. Also think about our DT layout. A bridge
can have several ports each with multiple links (maybe it has already been
decided to change names, don't remember by heart, sorry). Each of them
would then start a group.
> > > > > I can't think of any reason
> > > > > why you would want to have more than one group. If you have just one
> > > > > group
> > > > > you can simplify this code quite a bit: most of the v4l2_async_group
> > > > > fields
> > > > > can just become part of struct v4l2_device, you don't need the 'list'
> > > > > and
> > > > > 'v4l2_dev' fields anymore and the 'bind' and 'complete' callbacks can
> > > > > be
> > > > > implemented using the v4l2_device notify callback which we already
> > > > > have.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovet...@gmx.de>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One more thing to note about this patch. Subdevice drivers,
> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > asynchronous probing, and using this framework, need a unified way
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > detect, whether their probing should succeed or they should request
> > > > > > deferred probing. I implement this using device platform data. This
> > > > > > means,
> > > > > > that all subdevice drivers, wishing to use this API will have to
> > > > > > use the
> > > > > > same platform data struct. I don't think this is a major
> > > > > > inconvenience,
> > > > > > but if we decide against this, we'll have to add a V4L2 function to
> > > > > > verify
> > > > > > "are you ready for me or not." The latter would be inconvenient,
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > then we would have to look through all registered subdevice
> > > > > > descriptor
> > > > > > groups for this specific subdevice.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to admit that I don't quite follow this. I guess I would need
> > > > > to see
> > > > > this being used in an actual driver.
> > > >
> > > > The issue is simple: subdevice drivers have to recognise, when it's
> > > > still
> > > > too early to probe and return -EPROBE_DEFER. If you have a sensor,
> > > > whose
> > > > master clock is supplied from an external oscillator. You load its
> > > > driver,
> > > > it will happily get a clock reference and find no reason to fail
> > > > probe().
> > > > It will initialise its subdevice and return from probing. Then, when
> > > > your
> > > > bridge driver probes, it will have no way to find that subdevice.
> > >
> > > This problem is specific to platform subdev drivers, right? Since for i2c
> > > subdevs you can use i2c_get_clientdata().
> >
> > But how do you get the client? With DT you can follow our "remote"
> > phandle, and without DT?
>
> You would need a i2c_find_client() function for that. I would like to see some
> more opinions about this.
And then the same for SPI, UART... and platform devices cannot use it
anyway... Why not just handle all uniformly?
> > > I wonder whether it isn't a better idea to have platform_data embed a
> > > standard
> > > struct containing a v4l2_subdev pointer. Subdevs can use container_of to
> > > get
> > > from the address of that struct to the full platform_data, and you don't
> > > have
> > > that extra dereference (i.e. a pointer to the new struct which has a
> > > pointer
> > > to the actual platform_data). The impact of that change is much smaller
> > > for
> > > existing subdevs.
> >
> > This standard platform data object is allocated by the bridge driver, so,
> > it will not know where it is embedded in the subdevice specific platform
> > data.
>
> It should. The platform_data is specific to the subdev, so whoever is
> allocating
> the platform_data has to know the size and contents of the struct. Normally
> this
> structure is part of the board code for embedded systems.
Sorry, probably I didn't explain well enough. Let's take a no-DT case for
simplicity. Say, we have a bridge and a single sensor. The board code
provides platform data for each of the two drivers. The platform data for
the bridge driver is supplied directly to its platform device as
static struct platform_device ceu_device = {
...
.dev = {
.platform_data = &sh_mobile_ceu_info,
...
},
};
Normally, you would also provide platform data to I2C devices like
static struct i2c_board_info sensor_device = {
I2C_BOARD_INFO("sensor", 0x22),
.platform_data = &sensor_pdata,
...
};
but in our case we don't want to do that, instead we want to supply a
pointer to that sensor_data to the bridge driver, to later be supplied to
the sensor driver. Currently in the bus notifier upon BIND event (before
sensor driver's probe() is called) I supply the platform data to a
standard platform data holder struct to dev->platform_data and that holder
points to the original platform data from the board code (roughly):
struct v4l2_subdev_platform_data *sdpd = kzalloc();
sdpd->platform_data = board_platform_data;
dev->platform_data = sdpd;
Then, upon BOUND (after sensor driver's probe() has completed
successfully) we make sure sdpd->subdev points to the sensor's subdevice.
This works for all device types - I2C or anything else.
Now, you're suggesting to embed sdpd into the platform data. The first
part would still work, we just would pass the original platform data down
to the sensor's driver. But upon BOUND - how do we find the subdevice
pointer??
> That soc-camera doesn't do this is a major soc-camera design flaw. Soc-camera
> should not force the platform_data contents for subdev drivers.
Soc-camera does approximately the same - it has a compulsory standard
platform data part and an optional driver-specific part.
> > > And if it isn't necessary for i2c subdev drivers, then I think we should
> > > do
> > > this only for platform drivers.
> >
> > See above, and I don't think we should implement 2 different methods.
> > Besides, the change is very small. You anyway have to adapt sensor drivers
> > to return -EPROBE_DEFER. This takes 2 lines of code:
> >
> > + if (!client->dev.platform_data)
> > + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> >
> > If the driver isn't using platform data, that's it. If it is, you add two
> > more lines:
> >
> > - struct my_platform_data *pdata = client->dev.platform_data;
> > + struct v4l2_subdev_platform_data *sdpd = client->dev.platform_data;
> > + struct my_platform_data *pdata = sdpd->platform_data;
> >
> > That's it. Of course, you have to do this everywhere, where the driver
> > dereferences client->dev.platform_data, but even that shouldn't be too
> > difficult.
>
> I'd like to see other people's opinions on this as well. I do think I prefer
> embedding it (in most if not all cases such a standard struct would be at the
> beginning of the platform_data).
>
> > > That said, how does this new framework take care of timeouts if one of the
> > > subdevs is never bound?
> >
> > It doesn't.
> >
> > > You don't want to have this wait indefinitely, I think.
> >
> > There's no waiting:-) The bridge and other subdev drivers just remain
> > loaded and inactive.
>
> Is that what we want? I definitely would like to get other people's opinions
> on this.
>
> For the record: while it is waiting, can you safely rmmod the module?
> Looking at the code I think you can, but I'm not 100% certain.
It certainly should work. If it doesn't, we have to fix it.
And I really think it'd be better not to use the term "waiting" here. The
current code is waiting _synchronously_ after registering a new I2C device
until its driver has probed. We want to get rid of that and switch to
asynchronous notifications. Whetever becomes available can be used.
There's no waiting instance in the new concept.
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
