Hello,

On Thursday 01 Dec 2016 09:57:31 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:14:11PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Sakari Ailus <sakari.ai...@iki.fi> writes:
> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 03:25:32PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >>> Sakari Ailus <sakari.ai...@iki.fi> writes:
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 07:52:43AM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >>>>> Allow getting of subdevs from DT ports and endpoints.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The _get_pdata() function was larely inspired by (i.e. stolen from)
> >>>>> am437x-vpfe.c
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khil...@baylibre.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>  drivers/media/platform/davinci/vpif_capture.c | 130 +++++++++++++++-
> >>>>>  include/media/davinci/vpif_types.h     
> >>>>>        |   9 +-
> >>>>>  2 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/davinci/vpif_capture.c
> >>>>> b/drivers/media/platform/davinci/vpif_capture.c index
> >>>>> 94ee6cf03f02..47a4699157e7 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/davinci/vpif_capture.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/davinci/vpif_capture.c
> >>>>> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@
> >>>>>  #include <linux/slab.h>
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>  #include <media/v4l2-ioctl.h>
> >>>>> +#include <media/v4l2-of.h>
> >>>>> +#include <media/i2c/tvp514x.h>
> >>>> 
> >>>> Do you need this header?
> >>> 
> >>> Yes, based on discussion with Hans, since there is no DT binding for
> >>> selecting the input pins of the TVP514x, I have to select it in the
> >>> driver, so I need the defines from this header.  More on this below...

That's really ugly :-( The problem should be fixed properly instead of adding 
one more offender.

> >>>>>  #include "vpif.h"
> >>>>>  #include "vpif_capture.h"
> >>>>> @@ -650,6 +652,10 @@ static int vpif_input_to_subdev(
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>         vpif_dbg(2, debug, "vpif_input_to_subdev\n");
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> +       if (!chan_cfg)
> >>>>> +               return -1;
> >>>>> +       if (input_index >= chan_cfg->input_count)
> >>>>> +               return -1;
> >>>>>         subdev_name = chan_cfg->inputs[input_index].subdev_name;
> >>>>>         if (subdev_name == NULL)
> >>>>>                 return -1;
> >>>>> @@ -657,7 +663,7 @@ static int vpif_input_to_subdev(
> >>>>>         /* loop through the sub device list to get the sub device info
> >>>>>         */
> >>>>>         for (i = 0; i < vpif_cfg->subdev_count; i++) {
> >>>>>                 subdev_info = &vpif_cfg->subdev_info[i];
> >>>>> -               if (!strcmp(subdev_info->name, subdev_name))
> >>>>> +               if (subdev_info && !strcmp(subdev_info->name,
> >>>>> subdev_name))
> >>>>>                         return i;
> >>>>>         }
> >>>>>         return -1;
> >>>>> @@ -1327,6 +1333,21 @@ static int vpif_async_bound(struct
> >>>>> v4l2_async_notifier *notifier,> >> >> 
> >>>>>  {
> >>>>>         int i;
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> +       for (i = 0; i < vpif_obj.config->asd_sizes[0]; i++) {
> >>>>> +               struct v4l2_async_subdev *_asd = vpif_obj.config
> >>>>> ->asd[i];
> >>>>> +               const struct device_node *node = _asd->match.of.node;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +               if (node == subdev->of_node) {
> >>>>> +                       vpif_obj.sd[i] = subdev;
> >>>>> +                       vpif_obj.config->chan_config
> >>>>> ->inputs[i].subdev_name =
> >>>>> +                               (char *)subdev->of_node->full_name;

Can subdev_name be made const instead of blindly casting the full_name pointer 
? If not this is probably unsafe, and if yes it should be done :-)

> >>>>> +                       vpif_dbg(2, debug,
> >>>>> +                                "%s: setting input %d subdev_name =
> >>>>> %s\n",
> >>>>> +                                __func__, i, subdev->of_node
> >>>>> ->full_name);
> >>>>> +                       return 0;
> >>>>> +               }
> >>>>> +       }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>>         for (i = 0; i < vpif_obj.config->subdev_count; i++)
> >>>>>                 if (!strcmp(vpif_obj.config->subdev_info[i].name,
> >>>>>                             subdev->name)) {
> >>>>> @@ -1422,6 +1443,110 @@ static int vpif_async_complete(struct
> >>>>> v4l2_async_notifier *notifier)
> >>>>>         return vpif_probe_complete();
> >>>>>  }
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> +static struct vpif_capture_config *
> >>>>> +vpif_capture_get_pdata(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +       struct device_node *endpoint = NULL;
> >>>>> +       struct v4l2_of_endpoint bus_cfg;
> >>>>> +       struct vpif_capture_config *pdata;
> >>>>> +       struct vpif_subdev_info *sdinfo;
> >>>>> +       struct vpif_capture_chan_config *chan;
> >>>>> +       unsigned int i;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +       dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "vpif_get_pdata\n");
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) || !pdev->dev.of_node)
> >>>>> +               return pdev->dev.platform_data;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +       pdata = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>> +       if (!pdata)
> >>>>> +               return NULL;
> >>>>> +       pdata->subdev_info =
> >>>>> +               devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pdata->subdev_info) *
> >>>>> +                            VPIF_CAPTURE_MAX_CHANNELS, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +       if (!pdata->subdev_info)
> >>>>> +               return NULL;
> >>>>> +       dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +       for (i = 0; ; i++) {
> >>>>> +               struct device_node *rem;
> >>>>> +               unsigned int flags;
> >>>>> +               int err;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +               endpoint = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(pdev
> >>>>> ->dev.of_node,
> >>>>> +                                                     endpoint);
> >>>>> +               if (!endpoint)
> >>>>> +                       break;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +               sdinfo = &pdata->subdev_info[i];
> >>>> 
> >>>> subdev_info[] has got VPIF_CAPTURE_MAX_CHANNELS entries only.
> >>> 
> >>> Right, I need to make the loop only go for a max of
> >>> VPIF_CAPTURE_MAX_CHANNELS iterations.
> >>> 
> >>>>> +               chan = &pdata->chan_config[i];
> >>>>> +               chan->inputs = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
> >>>>> +                                           sizeof(*chan->inputs) *
> >>>>> +                                           VPIF_DISPLAY_MAX_CHANNELS,
> >>>>> +                                           GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +               chan->input_count++;
> >>>>> +               chan->inputs[i].input.type = V4L2_INPUT_TYPE_CAMERA;
> >>>> 
> >>>> I wonder what's the purpose of using index i on this array as well.
> >>> 
> >>> The number of endpoints in DT is the number of input channels
> >>> configured (up to a max of VPIF_CAPTURE_MAX_CHANNELS.)
> >>> 
> >>>> If you use that to access a corresponding entry in a different array,
> >>>> I'd just create a struct that contains the port configuration and the
> >>>> async sub-device. The omap3isp driver does that, for instance; see
> >>>> isp_of_parse_nodes() in drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c if
> >>>> you're interested. Up to you.
> >>> 
> >>> OK, I'll have a look at that driver. The goal here with this series is
> >>> just to get this working with DT, but also not break the existing
> >>> legacy platform_device support, so I'm trying not to mess with the
> >>> driver-interal data structures too much.
> >> 
> >> Ack.
> >> 
> >>>>> +               chan->inputs[i].input.std = V4L2_STD_ALL;
> >>>>> +               chan->inputs[i].input.capabilities = V4L2_IN_CAP_STD;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +               /* FIXME: need a new property? ch0:composite ch1:
> >>>>> s-video */
> >>>>> +               if (i == 0)
> >>>> 
> >>>> Can you assume that the first endopoint has got a particular kind of
> >>>> input? What if it's not connected?
> >>> 
> >>> On all the boards I know of (there aren't many using this SoC), it's a
> >>> safe assumption.
> >>> 
> >>>> If this is a different physical port (not in the meaning another) in
> >>>> the device, I'd use the reg property for this. Please see
> >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt .
> >>> 
> >>> My understanding (which is admittedly somewhat fuzzy) of the TVP514x is
> >>> that it's not physically a different port.  Instead, it's just telling
> >>> the TVP514x which pin(s) will be active inputs (and what kind of signal
> >>> will be present.)
> >>> 
> >>> I'm open to a better way to describe this input select from DT, but
> >>> based on what I heard from Hans, there isn't currently a good way to do
> >>> that except for in the driver:
> >>> (c.f. https://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=147887871615788)
> >>> 
> >>> Based on further discussion in that thread, it sounds like there may be
> >>> a way forward coming soon, and I'll be glad to switch to that when it
> >>> arrives.

I'm afraid I have to disappoint Hans here, I don't have code for that yet.

> >> I'm not sure that properly supporting connectors will provide any help
> >> here.
> >> 
> >> Looking at the s_routing() API, it's the calling driver that has to be
> >> aware of sub-device specific function parameters. As such it's not a
> >> very good idea to require that a driver is aware of the value range of
> >> another driver's parameter. I wonder if a simple enumeration interface
> >> would help here --- if I understand correctly, the purpose is just to
> >> provide a way to choose the input using VIDIOC_S_INPUT.
> >> 
> >> I guess that's somehow ok as long as you have no other combinations of
> >> these devices but this is hardly future-proof. (And certainly not a
> >> problem created by this patch.)
> > 
> > Yeah, this is far from future proof.
> > 
> >> It'd be still nice to fix that as presumably we don't have the option of
> >> reworking how we expect the device tree to look like.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > I'm just hoping someone can shed som light on "how we expect the device
> > tree to look".  ;)
>
> :-)
> 
> For the tvp514x, do you need more than a single endpoint on the receiver
> side? Does the input that's selected affect the bus parameters?
> 
> If it doesn't, you could create a custom endpoint property for the possible
> input values. The s_routing() really should be fixed though, but that could
> be postponed I guess. There are quite a few drivers using it.

There's two ways to look at s_routing() in my opinion, as the calling driver 
should really not hardcode any knowledge specific to a particular subdev. We 
can either have the calling driver discover the possible routing options at 
runtime through the subdev API, or modify the s_routing() API.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

--
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

Reply via email to