Hi Maxime,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:16:05PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
>
> Thanks for your review, I have a few questions though, and the rest
> will be addressed in the next version.
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 02:39:49PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > +static int csi_notify_complete(struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sun4i_csi *csi = container_of(notifier, struct sun4i_csi,
> > > + notifier);
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = v4l2_device_register_subdev_nodes(&csi->v4l);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = sun4i_csi_v4l2_register(csi);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + return media_create_pad_link(&csi->src_subdev->entity, csi->src_pad,
> > > + &csi->vdev.entity, 0,
> > > + MEDIA_LNK_FL_ENABLED |
> > > + MEDIA_LNK_FL_IMMUTABLE);
> >
> > This appears to create a link directly from the sensor entity to the video
> > device entity. Is that intentional? I'd expect to see a CSI-2 receiver
> > sub-device as well, which I don't see being created by the driver.
> >
> > This is indeed a novel proposal. I have some concerns though.
> >
> > The user doesn't have access to the configured media bus format (reflecting
> > the format on the CSI-2 bus on receiver's side). It's thus difficult to
> > figure out whether the V4L2 pixel format configured on the video node
> > matches what the sensor outputs. Admittedly, we don't have a perfect
> > solution to that whenever the DMA hardware supports multiple V4L2 pixel
> > formats on a single media bus format. We might need to have a different
> > solution for this one, should it be without that receiver sub-device.
> >
> > Could you add the CSI-2 receiver sub-device, please?
>
> Even though the name of the controller is *very* confusing, this isn't
> a MIPI-CSI receiver, but a parallel one that supports RGB and BT656
> buses.
Right.
>
> > > + csi->pad.flags = MEDIA_PAD_FL_SINK | MEDIA_PAD_FL_MUST_CONNECT;
> >
> > Could you make it IMMUTABLE and ENABLED? If there is no need to disable it,
> > that is.
>
> The link is already created with those flags, and as far as I know it
> doesn't exist for the pads
Oops. And it wasn't even late when I reviewed the patch. :-P Please ignore
the comment --- I agree on the pad flags and the link flags (some lines up)
appear fine, too.
>
> > > +static int csi_release(struct file *file)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sun4i_csi *csi = video_drvdata(file);
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&csi->lock);
> > > +
> > > + ret = v4l2_fh_release(file);
> >
> > v4l2_fh_release() always returns 0. I guess it could be changed to return
> > void. The reason it has int is that it could be used as the release
> > callback as such.
> >
> > > + v4l2_pipeline_pm_use(&csi->vdev.entity, 0);
> > > + pm_runtime_put(csi->dev);
> > > +
> > > + mutex_unlock(&csi->lock);
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
>
> Do you want me to change the construct then?
Please.
--
Kind regards,
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
