Hi Pavel,
My apologies for the delays in reviewing. Feel free to ping me in the future
if this happens. :-)
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 01:35:08PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> N900 contains front and back camera, with a switch between the
> two. This adds support for the switch component, and it is now
> possible to select between front and back cameras during runtime.
>
> This adds documentation for the devicetree binding.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>
>
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-bus-switch.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-bus-switch.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..1b9f8e0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-bus-switch.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> +Video Bus Switch Binding
> +========================
> +
> +This is a binding for a gpio controlled switch for camera interfaces. Such a
> +device is used on some embedded devices to connect two cameras to the same
> +interface of a image signal processor.
> +
> +Required properties
> +===================
> +
> +compatible : must contain "video-bus-switch"
How generic is this? Should we have e.g. nokia,video-bus-switch? And if so,
change the file name accordingly.
> +switch-gpios : GPIO specifier for the gpio, which can toggle the
> + selected camera. The GPIO should be configured, so
> + that a disabled GPIO means, that the first port is
> + selected.
> +
> +Required Port nodes
> +===================
> +
> +More documentation on these bindings is available in
> +video-interfaces.txt in the same directory.
> +
> +reg : The interface:
> + 0 - port for image signal processor
> + 1 - port for first camera sensor
> + 2 - port for second camera sensor
I'd say this must be pretty much specific to the one in N900. You could have
more ports. Or you could say that ports beyond 0 are camera sensors. I guess
this is good enough for now though, it can be changed later on with the
source if a need arises.
Btw. was it still considered a problem that the endpoint properties for the
sensors can be different? With the g_routing() pad op which is to be added,
the ISP driver (should actually go to a framework somewhere) could parse the
graph and find the proper endpoint there.
I don't think we need to wait for that now, but this is how the problem
could be solved going forward.
> +
> +Example
> +=======
> +
> +video-bus-switch {
> + compatible = "video-bus-switch"
> + switch-gpios = <&gpio1 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> +
> + ports {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> + port@0 {
> + reg = <0>;
> +
> + csi_switch_in: endpoint {
> + remote-endpoint = <&csi_isp>;
> + };
> + };
> +
> + port@1 {
> + reg = <1>;
> +
> + csi_switch_out1: endpoint {
> + remote-endpoint = <&csi_cam1>;
> + };
> + };
> +
> + port@2 {
> + reg = <2>;
> +
> + csi_switch_out2: endpoint {
> + remote-endpoint = <&csi_cam2>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
> +};
>
>
>
--
Kind regards,
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
