Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2023 17:53:19 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 0/8] i2c-atr and FPDLink |
| |
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 04:07:39PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
...
> + if (!c2a)
I would expect here dev_warn() to let user know about "shouldn't happened, but have happened" situation.
> + return; /* This shouldn't happen */
...
> - static const struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt format = { > + static const struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt informat = {
Naming a bit confusing. Is it "information" that cut or what?
in_format
> + static const struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt outformat = {
out_format
...
> -out_unlock: > +out:
Why?
...
> +/* > + * (Possible) TODOs
TODOs:
> + * > + * - PM for serializer and remote peripherals. We need to manage: > + * - VPOC > + * - Power domain? Regulator? Somehow any remote device should be able to > + * cause the VPOC to be turned on. > + * - Link between the deserializer and the serializer > + * - Related to VPOC management. We probably always want to turn on the VPOC > + * and then enable the link. > + * - Serializer's services: i2c, gpios, power > + * - The serializer needs to resume before the remote peripherals can > + * e.g. use the i2c. > + * - How to handle gpios? Reserving a gpio essentially keeps the provider > + * (serializer) always powered on. > + * - Do we need a new bus for the FPD-Link? At the moment the serializers > + * are children of the same i2c-adapter where the deserializer resides. > + * - i2c-atr could be made embeddable instead of allocatable. > + */
...
> struct atr_alias_table_entry { > u16 alias_id; /* Alias ID from DT */ > > - bool reserved; > + bool in_use; > u8 nport; > u8 slave_id; /* i2c client's local i2c address */ > u8 port_reg_idx;
Wouldn't be wiser to move boolean at the end so if any obscure architecture/compiler makes it longer than a byte it won't increase the memory footprint. (Actually wouldn't it be aligned to u16 followed by u8 as well as they are different types?)
> };
...
> +static int ub960_read16(struct ub960_data *priv, u8 reg, u16 *val) > +{ > + struct device *dev = &priv->client->dev; > + unsigned int v1, v2; > + int ret; > + > + mutex_lock(&priv->reg_lock); > + > + ret = regmap_read(priv->regmap, reg, &v1); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "%s: cannot read register 0x%02x (%d)!\n", > + __func__, reg, ret); > + goto out_unlock; > + } > + > + ret = regmap_read(priv->regmap, reg + 1, &v2); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "%s: cannot read register 0x%02x (%d)!\n", > + __func__, reg + 1, ret); > + goto out_unlock; > + }
Wondering why bulk read can't be used against properly typed __be16 variable?
> + *val = (v1 << 8) | v2;
+ be16_to_cpu() here.
> +out_unlock: > + mutex_unlock(&priv->reg_lock); > + > + return ret; > +}
...
> +static int ub960_rxport_read16(struct ub960_data *priv, u8 nport, u8 reg, > + u16 *val) > {
Ditto.
> +}
...
> struct i2c_board_info ser_info = { > - .of_node = to_of_node(rxport->remote_fwnode), > - .fwnode = rxport->remote_fwnode,
> + .of_node = to_of_node(rxport->ser.fwnode), > + .fwnode = rxport->ser.fwnode,
Why do you need to have both?!
> .platform_data = ser_pdata, > };
...
> + for (nport = 0; nport < priv->hw_data->num_rxports; ++nport) {
Pre-increment is non-standard in the kernel.
> + struct ub960_rxport *rxport = priv->rxports[nport]; > + struct v4l2_mbus_frame_desc desc; > + int ret; > + u8 cur_vc; > + > + if (!rxport) > + continue; > + > + ret = v4l2_subdev_call(rxport->source.sd, pad, get_frame_desc, > + rxport->source.pad, &desc); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + if (desc.type != V4L2_MBUS_FRAME_DESC_TYPE_CSI2) > + continue;
cur_vc = desc.entry[0].bus.csi2.vc;
> + for (i = 0; i < desc.num_entries; ++i) { > + u8 vc = desc.entry[i].bus.csi2.vc;
> + if (i == 0) { > + cur_vc = vc; > + continue; > + }
This is an invariant to the loop, see above.
> + if (vc == cur_vc) > + continue; > + > + dev_err(&priv->client->dev, > + "rx%u: source with multiple virtual-channels is not supported\n", > + nport); > + return -ENODEV; > + } > + }
...
> + for (i = 0; i < 6; ++i) > ub960_read(priv, UB960_SR_FPD3_RX_ID(i), &id[i]); > id[6] = 0;
Wondering if this magic can be defined.
...
> + priv->atr.aliases = devm_kcalloc(dev, table_size, > + sizeof(struct atr_alias_table_entry),
sizeof(*priv->atr.aliases) ?
> + GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!priv->atr.aliases) > return -ENOMEM;
...
> if (ret) { > if (ret != -EINVAL) { > - dev_err(dev, > - "rx%u: failed to read 'ti,strobe-pos': %d\n", > - nport, ret); > + dev_err(dev, "rx%u: failed to read '%s': %d\n", nport, > + "ti,strobe-pos", ret); > return ret; > } > } else if (strobe_pos < UB960_MIN_MANUAL_STROBE_POS || > @@ -3512,8 +3403,8 @@ ub960_parse_dt_rxport_link_properties(struct ub960_data *priv, > 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); > + dev_err(dev, "rx%u: failed to read '%s': %d\n", nport, > + "ti,eq-level", ret); > return ret; > } > } else if (eq_level > UB960_MAX_EQ_LEVEL) {
Seems like you may do (in both cases) similar to the above:
var = 0; ret = read_u32(); if (ret && ret != -EINVAL) { // error handling } if (var > limit) { // another error handling }
...
> + static const char *vpoc_names[UB960_MAX_RX_NPORTS] = { "vpoc0", "vpoc1", > + "vpoc2", "vpoc3" };
Wouldn't be better to format it as
static const char *vpoc_names[UB960_MAX_RX_NPORTS] = { "vpoc0", "vpoc1", "vpoc2", "vpoc3", };
?
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |