Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:48:10 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 5/7] media: i2c: add DS90UB960 driver |
| |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 02:40:29PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > Add driver for TI DS90UB960 FPD-Link III Deserializer.
...
> +#define UB960_MIN_AEQ_STROBE_POS -7
I believe it might need parentheses due to theoretical possibilities to be used in the expression.
...
> +#define UB960_MIN_MANUAL_STROBE_POS -(7 + 6)
Ditto.
...
> + ret = regmap_read(priv->regmap, reg, &v); > + if (ret) > + dev_err(dev, "%s: cannot read register 0x%02x (%d)!\n", > + __func__, reg, ret);
Not sure how this messages are useful and esp. parameters, since regmap has already trace events. Maybe it's possible to narrow regmap traces to the dedicated functions?
> + else > + *val = v;
...
> + if (priv->current_read_rxport == nport && > + priv->current_write_rxport_mask == BIT(nport)) > + return 0; > + > + ret = regmap_write(priv->regmap, UB960_SR_FPD3_PORT_SEL, > + (nport << 4) | (1 << nport));
Any reason why not BIT() here, while above and below it's being used?
> + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "%s: cannot select rxport %d (%d)!\n", __func__, > + nport, ret); > + return ret; > + }
> + priv->current_read_rxport = nport; > + priv->current_write_rxport_mask = BIT(nport); > + > + return 0; > +}
...
> +static int _ub960_csiport_select(struct ub960_data *priv, u8 nport) > +{
Same comment as above.
> +}
...
> +out:
out_unlock: ?
> + mutex_unlock(&priv->reg_lock); > + > + return ret;
Also in some cases you are using 'else' (as 'if (ret) ... else') in some goto approach. Can it be unified?
...
> + v &= ~mask; > + v |= val;
Usual pattern we use is
v = (v & ~mask) | (val & mask);
But can you use regmap_update_bits()? And why not?
...
> + ret = fwnode_property_count_u32(ep_fwnode, "data-lanes"); > + if (ret <= 0) { > + dev_err(dev, "tx%u: failed to parse 'data-lanes': %d\n", nport, > + ret);
Message is not consistent with the case ret == 0.
> + goto err_free_txport; > + }
...
> + if (ret != 1) { > + dev_err(dev, > + "tx%u: 'link-frequencies' must contain a single frequency: %d\n", > + nport, ret); > + goto err_free_txport; > + }
Shouldn't be here. As Rob Herring told at least once that driver must not replace DT validator.
...
> + if (priv->tx_data_rate != 1600000000 && > + priv->tx_data_rate != 1200000000 && > + priv->tx_data_rate != 800000000 && > + priv->tx_data_rate != 400000000) { > + dev_err(dev, "tx%u: invalid 'link-frequencies' value\n", nport); > + return -EINVAL; > + }
Ditto.
...
> + dev_dbg(dev, "tx%u: nominal data rate: %u", nport, priv->tx_data_rate);
All these kind of debugging are needed for production?
...
> +static void ub960_csi_handle_events(struct ub960_data *priv, u8 nport) > +{ > + struct device *dev = &priv->client->dev; > + u8 csi_tx_isr; > + int ret;
> + ret = ub960_csiport_read(priv, nport, UB960_TR_CSI_TX_ISR, &csi_tx_isr); > +
Redundant blank line.
> + if (!ret) {
What's wrong with the positive and traditional check, i.e.
if (ret) return;
?
> + if (csi_tx_isr & UB960_TR_CSI_TX_ISR_IS_CSI_SYNC_ERROR) > + dev_warn(dev, "TX%u: CSI_SYNC_ERROR\n", nport); > + > + if (csi_tx_isr & UB960_TR_CSI_TX_ISR_IS_CSI_PASS_ERROR) > + dev_warn(dev, "TX%u: CSI_PASS_ERROR\n", nport); > + } > +}
...
> +/* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > + * RX ports > + */
Multi-line comment is not in the style.
...
> + for (nport = 0; nport < priv->hw_data->num_rxports; ++nport) {
Post-increment is good enough, no? Ditto for other places. Esp. taking into account that some of them are using actually post-inc. Why this difference?
> + struct ub960_rxport *rxport = priv->rxports[nport]; > + > + if (!rxport || !rxport->vpoc) > + continue; > + > + ret = regulator_enable(rxport->vpoc); > + if (ret) > + goto err_disable_vpocs; > + }
...
> +err_disable_vpocs: > + for (; nport > 0; --nport) {
while (nport--) {
> + struct ub960_rxport *rxport = priv->rxports[nport - 1]; > + > + if (!rxport || !rxport->vpoc) > + continue; > + > + regulator_disable(rxport->vpoc); > + }
...
> + if (WARN_ON(strobe_pos < UB960_MIN_MANUAL_STROBE_POS || > + strobe_pos > UB960_MAX_MANUAL_STROBE_POS)) > + return;
Always be careful about WARN*() APIs because with a little trick they may become equivalent to BUG() which is a beast that nobody likes. I.o.w. you have to have justify why this is needed and can't be replaced with dev_*() or analogue.
Same for the other places with WARN*().
...
> + if (strobe_pos < -7) > + clk_delay = abs(strobe_pos) - 6; > + else if (strobe_pos > 7) > + data_delay = strobe_pos - 6; > + else if (strobe_pos < 0) > + clk_delay = abs(strobe_pos) | UB960_IR_RX_ANA_STROBE_SET_CLK_NO_EXTRA_DELAY; > + else if (strobe_pos > 0) > + data_delay = strobe_pos | UB960_IR_RX_ANA_STROBE_SET_DATA_NO_EXTRA_DELAY;
I'm wondering if clamp_t()/clamp_val() can be utilised here... And maybe in other places in the driver.
...
> + ub960_write(priv, UB960_XR_SFILTER_CFG,
> + ((u8)strobe_min << UB960_XR_SFILTER_CFG_SFILTER_MIN_SHIFT) | > + ((u8)strobe_max << UB960_XR_SFILTER_CFG_SFILTER_MAX_SHIFT));
Why castings are needed?
...
> + *eq_level = (v & 0x7) + ((v >> 3) & 0x7);
GENMASK()?
> + if (eq_level <= 7) { > + eq_stage_1_select_value = eq_level; > + eq_stage_2_select_value = 0; > + } else { > + eq_stage_1_select_value = 7; > + eq_stage_2_select_value = eq_level - 7;
A lot of magic 7 in the code. Are they all of the same semantic? Are they can be converted to use a macro (including respective MIN/MAX macros)?
...
> + WARN_ON(eq_stage_1_select_value > 7); > + WARN_ON(eq_stage_2_select_value > 7);
Why WARN()?
...
> + ub960_rxport_read(priv, nport, UB960_RR_AEQ_BYPASS, &v); > + > + v &= ~(UB960_RR_AEQ_BYPASS_EQ_STAGE1_VALUE_MASK | > + UB960_RR_AEQ_BYPASS_EQ_STAGE2_VALUE_MASK); > + v |= eq_stage_1_select_value << UB960_RR_AEQ_BYPASS_EQ_STAGE1_VALUE_SHIFT; > + v |= eq_stage_2_select_value << UB960_RR_AEQ_BYPASS_EQ_STAGE2_VALUE_SHIFT; > + v |= UB960_RR_AEQ_BYPASS_ENABLE; /* Enable AEQ Bypass */ > + > + ub960_rxport_write(priv, nport, UB960_RR_AEQ_BYPASS, v);
Can't you provide ub960_rxport_update_bits() ?
...
> + ret = ub960_rxport_read(priv, nport, UB960_RR_RX_PAR_ERR_HI, &v1); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + ret = ub960_rxport_read(priv, nport, UB960_RR_RX_PAR_ERR_LO, &v2); > + if (ret) > + return ret;
Can this be read at once as BE16/LE16 value? Or if the stream of bytes, you can use le/be16_to_cpu().
> + parity_errors = (v1 << 8) | v2;
...
> + errors = (rx_port_sts1 & 0x2c) || (rx_port_sts2 & 0x20) || > + (bcc_sts & 0x3f) || (csi_rx_sts & 0xf) || csi_err_cnt ||
BIT()? GENMASK()?
At bare minimum this needs a good comment to explain all these magics.
> + parity_errors;
...
> + *ok = !errors;
How this is different to the something like returning 1 here (and 0 above)? You may save some code by dropping redundant parameter.
> + return 0;
...
> + while (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) { > + missing = 0; > + > + for_each_set_bit(nport, &port_mask, > + priv->hw_data->num_rxports) { > + struct ub960_rxport *rxport = priv->rxports[nport]; > + bool ok; > + > + if (!rxport) > + continue; > + > + ret = ub960_rxport_link_ok(priv, nport, &ok); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + if (!ok || !(link_ok_mask & BIT(nport))) > + missing++; > + > + if (ok) > + link_ok_mask |= BIT(nport); > + else > + link_ok_mask &= ~BIT(nport); > + } > + > + loops++; > + > + if (missing == 0) > + break; > + > + msleep(50); > + }
You can wrap the body into readx_poll_timeout() from iopoll.h.
...
> + ub960_rxport_read(priv, nport, UB960_RR_RX_FREQ_HIGH, &v1); > + ub960_rxport_read(priv, nport, UB960_RR_RX_FREQ_LOW, &v2);
Same Q, can these be unified to some kind of bulk read?
...
> + dev_dbg(dev, "\trx%u: locked, SP: %d, EQ: %u, freq %u Hz\n", > + nport, strobe_pos, eq_level, > + v1 * 1000000 + v2 * 1000000 / 256);
Even this will be simpler with above suggestion.
...
> +static int ub960_rxport_add_serializers(struct ub960_data *priv) > +{ > + unsigned int nport; > + int ret; > + > + for (nport = 0; nport < priv->hw_data->num_rxports; ++nport) {
Post-inc?
> + struct ub960_rxport *rxport = priv->rxports[nport]; > + > + if (!rxport) > + continue; > + > + ret = ub960_rxport_add_serializer(priv, nport); > + if (ret) > + goto err_remove_sers; > + } > + > + return 0; > + > +err_remove_sers: > + for (; nport > 0; --nport) {
while(nport--)
(and drop those -1:s below)
> + struct ub960_rxport *rxport = priv->rxports[nport - 1]; > + > + if (!rxport) > + continue; > + > + rxport = priv->rxports[nport - 1]; > + if (!rxport) > + continue; > + > + ub960_rxport_remove_serializer(priv, nport - 1); > + } > + > + return ret; > +}
...
> + if (priv->tx_data_rate == 1600000000)
Easy to make a mistake, perhaps something from units.h / time.h can be used?
> + csi_ctl |= UB960_TR_CSI_CTL_CSI_CAL_EN;
...
> + switch (priv->tx_data_rate) { > + case 1600000000: > + default: > + speed_select = 0; > + pll_div = 0x10; > + break; > + case 1200000000: > + speed_select = 1; > + break; > + case 800000000: > + speed_select = 2; > + pll_div = 0x10; > + break; > + case 400000000: > + speed_select = 3; > + pll_div = 0x10; > + break; > + }
Ditto, but maybe defines for them?
...
> + switch (rxport->rx_mode) { > + default: > + WARN_ON(true); > + fallthrough;
Maybe you can drop default completely and rely on compiler to produce a warning?
> + case RXPORT_MODE_RAW10: > + /* > + * RAW10_8BIT_CTL = 0b11 : 8-bit processing using lower 8 bits > + * 0b10 : 8-bit processing using upper 8 bits > + */ > + ub960_rxport_update_bits(priv, nport, UB960_RR_PORT_CONFIG2, > + 0x3 << 6, 0x2 << 6); > + > + break; > + > + case RXPORT_MODE_CSI2_SYNC: > + case RXPORT_MODE_CSI2_ASYNC: > + > + break; > + }
...
> + u8 cur_vc[UB960_MAX_TX_NPORTS] = { 0 };
0 is not needed.
...
> + for (i = 0; i < routing->num_routes; ++i) { > + struct v4l2_subdev_route *route = &routing->routes[i]; > + unsigned int rx, tx; > + > + rx = ub960_pad_to_port(priv, route->sink_pad);
> +
Redundant blank line.
> + if (BIT(rx) & handled_mask) > + continue; > + > + tx = ub960_pad_to_port(priv, route->source_pad); > + > + vc[rx] = cur_vc[tx]++; > + handled_mask |= BIT(rx); > + }
...
> + if (rx_data[nport].tx_port == 1) > + fwd_ctl |= BIT(nport); /* forward to TX1 */ > + else > + fwd_ctl &= ~BIT(nport); /* forward to TX0 */
This and many other similar places can be replaced by __assign_bit() if the lvalue is type of unsigned long or can be made that type.
...
> +static void ub960_update_streaming_status(struct ub960_data *priv) > +{ > + unsigned int i;
> + bool streaming = false;
Redundant
> + for (i = 0; i < UB960_MAX_NPORTS; ++i) { > + if (priv->stream_enable_mask[i]) { > + streaming = true; > + break; > + } > + }
> + priv->streaming = streaming;
priv->streaming = i < UB960_MAX_NPORTS;
> +}
...
> + for (; nport > 0; --nport) {
while (nport--)
> + if (pad_stream_masks[nport - 1] == 0) > + continue; > + > + ub960_disable_streams( > + sd, state, > + priv->hw_data->num_rxports + > + nport - 1, > + pad_stream_masks[nport - 1]); > + }
...
> + char id[7];
u8?
> + for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 6; ++i) > + ub960_read(priv, UB960_SR_FPD3_RX_ID(i), &id[i]); > + id[6] = 0;
If it's only for printing, the 0 is not needed...
> + dev_info(dev, "ID '%s'\n", id);
...as you may put it as
dev_info(dev, "ID: '%.*s'\n", (int)sizeof(id), id);
(I wrote from the top of my head, maybe not compilable as is).
...
> +static irqreturn_t ub960_handle_events(int irq, void *arg) > +{ > + struct ub960_data *priv = arg; > + unsigned int i; > + u8 int_sts; > + int ret;
> + ret = ub960_read(priv, UB960_SR_INTERRUPT_STS, &int_sts);
> +
Redundant blank line. I guess you may decrease your code by ~2.5% by removing such unneeded blank lines here and there.
> + if (!ret && int_sts) {
if (ret) return ...
if (!int_sts) return IRQ_NONE; // No?
> + u8 fwd_sts; > + > + dev_dbg(&priv->client->dev, "INTERRUPT_STS %x\n", int_sts); > + > + ub960_read(priv, UB960_SR_FWD_STS, &fwd_sts); > + > + dev_dbg(&priv->client->dev, "FWD_STS %#02x\n", fwd_sts); > + > + for (i = 0; i < priv->hw_data->num_txports; ++i) { > + if (int_sts & UB960_SR_INTERRUPT_STS_IS_CSI_TX(i)) > + ub960_csi_handle_events(priv, i); > + } > + > + for (i = 0; i < priv->hw_data->num_rxports; i++) { > + if (!priv->rxports[i]) > + continue; > + > + if (int_sts & UB960_SR_INTERRUPT_STS_IS_RX(i)) > + ub960_rxport_handle_events(priv, i); > + } > + }
> + return IRQ_HANDLED; > +}
...
> + if (cdr_mode > RXPORT_CDR_LAST) { > + dev_err(dev, "rx%u: bad 'ti,cdr-mode' %u\n", nport, cdr_mode); > + return -EINVAL; > + }
No DT validation if it's not used in (memory) allocation.
...
> + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(link_fwnode, "ti,strobe-pos", > + &strobe_pos); > + if (ret) { > + if (ret != -EINVAL) { > + dev_err(dev, > + "rx%u: failed to read 'ti,strobe-pos': %d\n", > + nport, ret); > + return ret; > + } > + } else if (strobe_pos < UB960_MIN_MANUAL_STROBE_POS || > + strobe_pos > UB960_MAX_MANUAL_STROBE_POS) { > + dev_err(dev, "rx%u: illegal 'strobe-pos' value: %d\n", nport, > + strobe_pos); > + } else { > + // NOTE: ignored unless global manual strobe pos is set
Style?
> + rxport->eq.strobe_pos = strobe_pos; > + if (!priv->strobe.manual) > + dev_warn(dev, > + "rx%u: 'ti,strobe-pos' ignored as 'ti,manual-strobe' not set\n", > + nport); > + }
This and below looks a bit different to the above in the same function. Perhaps these can be refactored to be less LoCs.
> + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(link_fwnode, "ti,eq-level", &eq_level); > + if (ret) { > + if (ret != -EINVAL) { > + dev_err(dev, "rx%u: failed to read 'ti,eq-level': %d\n", > + nport, ret); > + return ret; > + } > + } else if (eq_level > UB960_MAX_EQ_LEVEL) { > + dev_err(dev, "rx%u: illegal 'ti,eq-level' value: %d\n", nport, > + eq_level); > + } else { > + rxport->eq.manual_eq = true; > + rxport->eq.manual.eq_level = eq_level; > + } > + > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(link_fwnode, "i2c-alias", > + &ser_i2c_alias); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "rx%u: failed to read 'i2c-alias': %d\n", nport, > + ret); > + return ret; > + }
...
> +static struct fwnode_handle * > +ub960_fwnode_get_link_by_regs(struct fwnode_handle *links_fwnode, > + unsigned int nport) > +{ > + struct fwnode_handle *link_fwnode; > + int ret; > + > + fwnode_for_each_child_node(links_fwnode, link_fwnode) { > + u32 link_num; > + > + if (strncmp(fwnode_get_name(link_fwnode), "link@", 5) != 0) > + continue;
str_has_prefix()
> + > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(link_fwnode, "reg", &link_num); > + if (ret)
Refcount imbalance.
> + return NULL; > + > + if (nport == link_num) { > + fwnode_handle_put(link_fwnode); > + return link_fwnode; > + } > + } > + > + return NULL; > +}
...
> + asd = v4l2_async_nf_add_fwnode(&priv->notifier, > + rxport->source_ep_fwnode, > + struct ub960_asd); > + if (IS_ERR(asd)) { > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to add subdev for source %u: %ld",
%pe ?
> + i, PTR_ERR(asd)); > + v4l2_async_nf_cleanup(&priv->notifier); > + return PTR_ERR(asd); > + }
...
> +err_pd_gpio: > + if (priv->pd_gpio)
Dup test.
> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(priv->pd_gpio, 1);
...
> + if (priv->pd_gpio) > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(priv->pd_gpio, 1);
Ditto.
...
> + priv->hw_data = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
Why of_ out of the blue?!
> + if (!priv->hw_data) > + return -ENODEV;
...
> + priv->current_indirect_target = 0xff; > + priv->current_read_rxport = 0xff; > + priv->current_write_rxport_mask = 0xff; > + priv->current_read_csiport = 0xff; > + priv->current_write_csiport_mask = 0xff;
GENMASK()
...
> + ub960_rxport_wait_locks(priv, 0xf, NULL);
Ditto?
...
> +static const struct i2c_device_id ub960_id[] = { > + { "ds90ub960-q1", 0 }, > + { "ds90ub9702-q1", 0 },
Why driver data is different to OF case?
> + {} > +}; > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, ub960_id); > + > +static const struct of_device_id ub960_dt_ids[] = { > + { .compatible = "ti,ds90ub960-q1", .data = &ds90ub960_hw }, > + { .compatible = "ti,ds90ub9702-q1", .data = &ds90ub9702_hw }, > + {} > +}; > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ub960_dt_ids);
> +static struct i2c_driver ds90ub960_driver = { > + .probe_new = ub960_probe, > + .remove = ub960_remove, > + .id_table = ub960_id, > + .driver = { > + .name = "ds90ub960",
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
Set by macro from the beginning of its, macro, existence.
> + .of_match_table = ub960_dt_ids, > + }, > +};
...
> +struct ds90ub9xx_platform_data { > + u32 port; > + struct i2c_atr *atr; > + unsigned long bc_rate;
Not sure why we need this to be public except, probably, atr...
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |