Hi Laurent,
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> On Friday 26 December 2014 14:37:14 Josh Wu wrote:
> > On 12/25/2014 6:39 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2014, Josh Wu wrote:
> > >> On 12/20/2014 6:16 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Josh Wu wrote:
> > >>>> On 12/19/2014 5:59 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2014, Josh Wu wrote:
> > >>>>>> To support async probe for ov2640, we need remove the code to get
> > >>>>>> 'mclk' in ov2640_probe() function. oterwise, if soc_camera host is
> > >>>>>> not probed in the moment, then we will fail to get 'mclk' and quit
> > >>>>>> the ov2640_probe() function.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> So in this patch, we move such 'mclk' getting code to
> > >>>>>> ov2640_s_power() function. That make ov2640 survive, as we can pass a
> > >>>>>> NULL (priv-clk) to soc_camera_set_power() function.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> And if soc_camera host is probed, the when ov2640_s_power() is
> > >>>>>> called, then we can get the 'mclk' and that make us enable/disable
> > >>>>>> soc_camera host's clock as well.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh...@atmel.com>
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> v3 -> v4:
> > >>>>>> v2 -> v3:
> > >>>>>> v1 -> v2:
> > >>>>>> no changes.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov2640.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++--------
> > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov2640.c
> > >>>>>> b/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov2640.c
> > >>>>>> index 1fdce2f..9ee910d 100644
> > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov2640.c
> > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov2640.c
> > >>>>>> @@ -739,6 +739,15 @@ static int ov2640_s_power(struct v4l2_subdev
> > >>>>>> *sd, int on)
> > >>>>>> struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
> > >>>>>> struct soc_camera_subdev_desc *ssdd =
> > >>>>>> soc_camera_i2c_to_desc(client);
> > >>>>>> struct ov2640_priv *priv = to_ov2640(client);
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> + struct v4l2_clk *clk;
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + if (!priv->clk) {
> > >>>>>> + clk = v4l2_clk_get(&client->dev, "mclk");
> > >>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(clk))
> > >>>>>> + dev_warn(&client->dev, "Cannot get the mclk.
> > >>>>>> maybe
> > >>>>>> soc-camera host is not probed yet.\n");
> > >>>>>> + else
> > >>>>>> + priv->clk = clk;
> > >>>>>> + }
> > >>>>>> return soc_camera_set_power(&client->dev, ssdd,
> > >>>>>> priv->clk,
> > >>>>>> on);
> > >>>>>> }
> > >>
> > >> Just let me explained a little more details at first:
> > >>
> > >> As my understanding, current the priv->clk is a v4l2_clk: mclk, which is
> > >> a wrapper clock in soc_camera.c.
> > >> it can make soc_camera to call camera host's clock_start() clock_stop().
> > >> As in ov2640, the real mck (pck1) is in ov2640 dt node (xvclk). So the
> > >> camera host's clock_start()/stop() only need to enable/disable his
> > >> peripheral clock.
> > >
> > > I'm looking at the ov2640 datasheet. In the block diagram I only see one
> > > input clock - the xvclk. Yes, it can be supplied by the camera host
> > > controller, in which case it is natural for the camera host driver to own
> > > and control it, or it can be a separate clock device - either static or
> > > configurable. This is just a note to myself to clarify, that it's one and
> > > the same clock pin we're talking about.
> > >
> > > Now, from the hardware / DT PoV, I think, the DT should look like:
> > >
> > > a) in the ov2640 I2C DT node we should have a clock consumer entry,
> > > linking to a board-specific source.
> >
> > That's what this patch series do right now.
> > In my patch 5/5 DT document said, ov2640 need a clock consumer which
> > refer to the xvclk input clock.
> > And it is a required property.
> >
> > > b) if the ov2640 clock is supplied by a camera host, its DT entry should
> > > have a clock source subnode, to which ov2640 clock consumer entry should
> > > link. The respective camera host driver should then parse that clock
> > > subnode and register the respective clock with the V4L2 framework, by
> > > calling v4l2_clk_register().
> >
> > Ok, So in this case, I need to wait for the "mclk" in probe of ov2640
> > driver. So that I can be compatible for the camera host which provide
> > the clock source.
>
> Talking about mclk and xvclk is quite confusing. There's no mclk from an
> ov2640 point of view. The ov2640 driver should call v4l2_clk_get("xvclk").
Yes, I also was thinking about this, and yes, requesting a "xvclk" clock
would be more logical. But then, as you write below, if we let the
v4l2_clk wrapper first check for a CCF "xvclk" clock, say, none is found.
How do we then find the exported "mclk" V4L2 clock? Maybe v4l2_clk_get()
should use two names?..
> > > c) if the ov2640 clock is supplied by a different clock source, the
> > > respective driver should parse it and also eventually call
> > > v4l2_clk_register().
> > >
> > > Implementing case (b) above is so far up to each individual (soc-camera)
> > > camera host driver. In soc-camera host drivers don't register V4L2 clocks
> > > themselves, as you correctly noticed, they just provide a .clock_start()
> > > and a .clock_stop() callbacks. The registration is done by the soc-camera
> > > core.
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly you have case (c). Unfortunately, this case
> > > isn't supported atm. I think, a suitable way to do this would be:
> > >
> > > (1) modify soc-camera to not register a V4L2 clock if the host doesn't
> > > provide the required callbacks.
> > >
> > > (2) hosts should recognise configurations, in which they don't supply the
> > > master clock to clients and not provide the callbacks then.
> > >
> > > (3) a separate driver should register a suitable V4L2 clock.
> > >
> > > Whereas I don't think we need to modify camera drivers. Their requesting
> > > of a V4L2 clock is correct as is.
> > >
> > > Some more fine-print: if the clock is supplied by a generic device, it
> > > would be wrong for it to register a V4L2 clock. It should register a
> > > normal CCF clock, and a separate V4L2 driver should create a V4L2 clock
> > > from it. This isn't implemented either and we've been talking about it for
> > > a while now...
>
> v4l2_clk_get() should try to get the clock from CCF with a call to clk_get()
> first, and then look at the list of v4l2-specific clocks.
Yes, how will it find the "mclk" when "xvclk" (or any other name) is
requested? We did discuss this in the beginning and agreed to use a fixed
clock name for the time being...
> That's at least how
> I had envisioned it when v4l2_clk_get() was introduced. Let's remember that
> v4l2_clk was designed as a temporary workaround for platforms not
> implementing
> CCF yet. Is that still needed, or could be instead just get rid of it now ?
I didn't check, but I don't think all platforms, handled by soc-camera,
support CCF yet.
> > I think I understand your point now.
> >
> > >> That is the motivation I want ov2640 be probed even without "mclk".
> > >
> > > ov2640 can be used with other boards and camera hosts, not only your
> > > specific board. In other configurations your change will break the driver.
> > >
> > >>> Ok, think about this: you check whether priv->clk is set on each
> > >>> .s_power() call, which is already a bit awkward.
> > >>
> > >> yes, it is.
> > >>
> > >>> Such approach can be used when there's no other way to perform a one-
> > >>> time action, but here we have one. But never mind, that's not the main
> > >>> problem. If priv->clk isn't set, you try to acquire it. But during
> > >>> probing, when this function is called for the first time clock isn't
> > >>> available yet, but you still want to succeed probing. So, you just issue
> > >>> a warning and continue. But then later an application opens the camera,
> > >>> .s_power() is called again, but for some reason the clock might still be
> > >>> not available, and this time you should fail. But you don't, you succeed
> > >>> and then you'll fail somewhere later, presumably, with a timeout waiting
> > >>> for frames. Am I right?
> > >>
> > >> if the clock (v4l2 clock: mclk) is not available, then, there is no
> > >> camera host available.
> > >
> > > This isn't true - from the hardware perspective. The clock can be supplied
> > > by a different source.
> > >
> > >> So the system should have no v4l2 device found.
> > >> I think in this case the application cannot call the camera sensor
> > >> .s_power() via v4l2 ioctl.
> > >> So the timeout case should not happened.
> > >
> > > No, sorry, I meant a physical clock, not aclock object. You can register
> > > the complete framework and try to use it, but if the physical clock isn't
> > > enabled, the camera sensor won't function correctly.
> > >
> > >>>>>> @@ -1078,21 +1087,21 @@ static int ov2640_probe(struct i2c_client
> > >>>>>> *client,
> > >>>>>> if (priv->hdl.error)
> > >>>>>> return priv->hdl.error;
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> - priv->clk = v4l2_clk_get(&client->dev, "mclk");
> > >>>>>> - if (IS_ERR(priv->clk)) {
> > >>>>>> - ret = PTR_ERR(priv->clk);
> > >>>>>> - goto eclkget;
> > >>>>>> - }
> > >>>>>> -
> > >>>>>> ret = ov2640_video_probe(client);
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The first thing the above ov2640_video_probe() function will do is
> > >>>>> call ov2640_s_power(), which will request the clock. So, by moving
> > >>>>> requesting the clock from ov2640_probe() to ov2640_s_power() doesn't
> > >>>>> change how probing will be performed, am I right?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> yes, you are right. In this patch, the "mclk" will requested by
> > >>>> ov2640_s_power().
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The reason why I put the getting "mclk" code from ov2640_probe() to
> > >>>> ov2640_s_power() is : as the "mclk" here is camera host's peripheral
> > >>>> clock. That means ov2640 still can be probed properly (read ov2640 id)
> > >>>> even no "mclk". So when I move this code to ov2640_s_power(), otherwise
> > >>>> the ov2640_probe() will be failed or DEFER_PROBE.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Is this true for all camera host? If it's not true, then I think use
> > >>>> -EPROBE_DEFER would be a proper way.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry, not sure what your question is.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, I don't make me clear here.
> > >> My question should be: Are all the camera host's clock_start()/stop()
> > >> only operate their peripheral clock?
> > >
> > > Yes, that's all camera hosts have. They cannot operate other unrelated
> > > clock sources.
> > >
> > >>> And I'm not sure ov2640's registers
> > >>> can be accessed with no running clock.
> > >>
> > >> No, it seems there is a misunderstanding here.
> > >>
> > >> I didn't mean ov2640 can be probed without xvclk.
> > >> What I try to say is the ov2640 can be probed without camera host's
> > >> peripheral clock.
> > >
> > > Ok, then your patch will break the driver even earlier - when trying to
> > > access ov2640 registers without enabling the clock.
> > >
> > >>> I think some camera sensors can do this, but I have no idea about this
> > >>> one. How did you verify? Is it mentioned in a datasheet? Or did you
> > >>> really disconnected (grounded) the sensor clock input and tried to
> > >>> access its reqisters? If you just verified, that it's working without
> > >>> requesting the clock, are you sure your clock output isn't running
> > >>> permanently all the time anyway?
> > >>
> > >> I didn't verify the those method as I only probed the ov2640 without ISI
> > >> enabled. ISI peripheral clock is disabled and etc.
> > >
> > > Right, this means a separate (probably always-on) clock source is used on
> > > your specific board, but this doesn't have to be the case on all other
> > > boards, where ov2640 is used.
> > >
> > >>>>> Or are there any other patched, that change that, that I'm overseeing?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If I'm right, then I would propose an approach, already used in other
> > >>>>> drivers instead of this one: return -EPROBE_DEFER if the clock isn't
> > >>>>> available during probing. See ef6672ea35b5bb64ab42e18c1a1ffc717c31588a
> > >>>>> for an example. Or did I misunderstand anything?
>
> That commit introduced the following code block in the mt9m111 driver.
>
> mt9m111->clk = v4l2_clk_get(&client->dev, "mclk");
> if (IS_ERR(mt9m111->clk))
> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>
> The right thing to do is to return PTR_ERR(mt9m111->clk), not a hardcoded -
> EPROBE_DEFER. v4l2_clk_get() should return -EPROBE_DEFER if the clock is not
> found,
This could be done, yes, currently it returns ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) in such
cases.
Thanks
Guennadi
> and possibly other error codes to indicate different errors.
>
> > >> I can implement with your method. like in probe() function, request the
> > >> v4l2_clk "mclk", if failed then return -EPROBE_DEFER.
> > >
> > > Yes, please, I think this would be a correct solution.
> >
> > According to my understanding, if I implement this way I can be
> > compatible with the camera host which provide the xvclk for ov2640.
> >
> > So I will prepare the next version with this way.
> > BTW: do you have any comment for the 1/5 patches?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Josh Wu
> >
> > >> But I remember you mentioned that you will remove the v4l2 clock in
> > >> future.
> > >> See ff5430de commit message.
> > >> So I just want to not so depends on the v4l2_clk "mclk".
> > >
> > > This might or might not happen. We so far depend on it. And we might also
> > > keep it, just adding a CCF V4L2 clock driver to handle generic clock
> > > sources like in case (c) above.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Guennadi
> > >
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >> Josh Wu
> > >>
> > >>>> Actually months ago I already done a version of ov2640 patch which use
> > >>>> -EPROBE_DEFER way.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But now I think the ov2640 can be probed correctly without "mclk", so
> > >>>> it is no need to return -EPROBE_DEFER. And the v4l2 asyn API can handle
> > >>>> the synchronization of host. So I prefer to use this way.
> > >>>> What do you think about this?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best Regards,
> > >>>> Josh Wu
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>> Guennadi
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> if (ret) {
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> - v4l2_clk_put(priv->clk);
> > >>>>>> -eclkget:
> > >>>>>> - v4l2_ctrl_handler_free(&priv->hdl);
> > >>>>>> + goto evideoprobe;
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> } else {
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> dev_info(&adapter->dev, "OV2640 Probed\n");
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> + ret = v4l2_async_register_subdev(&priv->subdev);
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> + if (ret < 0)
> > >>>>>> + goto evideoprobe;
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + return 0;
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> +evideoprobe:
> > >>>>>> + v4l2_ctrl_handler_free(&priv->hdl);
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> return ret;
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> }
> > >>>>>> @@ -1100,7 +1109,9 @@ static int ov2640_remove(struct i2c_client
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *client)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> struct ov2640_priv *priv = to_ov2640(client);
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> - v4l2_clk_put(priv->clk);
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> + v4l2_async_unregister_subdev(&priv->subdev);
> > >>>>>> + if (priv->clk)
> > >>>>>> + v4l2_clk_put(priv->clk);
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> v4l2_device_unregister_subdev(&priv->subdev);
> > >>>>>> v4l2_ctrl_handler_free(&priv->hdl);
> > >>>>>> return 0;
>
> --
> 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
