Hi Rui,
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 02:05:24PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
> On Sun 10 Mar 2019 at 21:41, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Rui,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch.
>
> Where have you been for the latest 14 versions? :)
Elsewhere I suppose :-)
> This is already merged, but... follow up patches can address your
> issues bellow.
I saw the driver and DT bindings patches merged in the media tree for
v5.2, where have the DT patches been merged ?
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 03:13:23PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva
> > wrote:
> >> This patch adds the device tree nodes for csi, video
> >> multiplexer and mipi-csi besides the graph connecting the necessary
> >> endpoints to make the media capture entities to work in imx7 Warp
> >> board.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rui Miguel Silva <rui.silva@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s-warp.dts | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s.dtsi | 27 +++++++++++++++++
> >
> > I would have split this in two patches to make backporting
> > easier, but it's not a big deal.
> >
> > Please see below for a few additional comments.
> >
> >> 2 files changed, 78 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s-warp.dts
> >> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s-warp.dts
> >> index 23431faecaf4..358bcae7ebaf 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s-warp.dts
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s-warp.dts
> >> @@ -277,6 +277,57 @@
> >> status = "okay";
> >> };
> >>
> >> +&gpr {
> >> + csi_mux {
> >> + compatible = "video-mux";
> >> + mux-controls = <&mux 0>;
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >> +
> >> + port@1 {
> >> + reg = <1>;
> >> +
> >> + csi_mux_from_mipi_vc0: endpoint {
> >> + remote-endpoint =
> >> <&mipi_vc0_to_csi_mux>;
> >> + };
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> + port@2 {
> >> + reg = <2>;
> >> +
> >> + csi_mux_to_csi: endpoint {
> >> + remote-endpoint =
> >> <&csi_from_csi_mux>;
> >> + };
> >> + };
> >> + };
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +&csi {
> >> + status = "okay";
> >> +
> >> + port {
> >> + csi_from_csi_mux: endpoint {
> >> + remote-endpoint = <&csi_mux_to_csi>;
> >> + };
> >> + };
> >> +};
> >
> > Shouldn't these two nodes, as well as port@1 of the mipi_csi
> > node, be moved to imx7d.dtsi ?
>
> Yeah, I guess you are right here.
>
> >
> >> +
> >> +&mipi_csi {
> >> + clock-frequency = <166000000>;
> >> + status = "okay";
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >> + fsl,csis-hs-settle = <3>;
> >
> > Shouldn't this be an endpoint property ? Different sensors connected
> > through different endpoints could have different timing
> > requirements.
>
> Hum... I see you point, even tho the phy hs-settle is a common
> control.
I suppose we don't need to care about DT backward compatibility if we
make changes in the bindings for v5.2 ? Would you fix this, or do you
want a patch ?
> >> +
> >> + port@1 {
> >> + reg = <1>;
> >> +
> >> + mipi_vc0_to_csi_mux: endpoint {
> >> + remote-endpoint = <&csi_mux_from_mipi_vc0>;
> >> + };
> >> + };
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> &wdog1 {
> >> pinctrl-names = "default";
> >> pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_wdog>;
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s.dtsi
> >> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s.dtsi
> >> index 792efcd2caa1..01962f85cab6 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s.dtsi
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7s.dtsi
> >> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> >> #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> >> #include <dt-bindings/input/input.h>
> >> #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> >> +#include <dt-bindings/reset/imx7-reset.h>
> >> #include "imx7d-pinfunc.h"
> >>
> >> / {
> >> @@ -709,6 +710,17 @@
> >> status = "disabled";
> >> };
> >>
> >> + csi: csi@30710000 {
> >> + compatible = "fsl,imx7-csi";
> >> + reg = <0x30710000 0x10000>;
> >> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> >> + clocks = <&clks IMX7D_CLK_DUMMY>,
> >> + <&clks IMX7D_CSI_MCLK_ROOT_CLK>,
> >> + <&clks IMX7D_CLK_DUMMY>;
> >> + clock-names = "axi", "mclk", "dcic";
> >> + status = "disabled";
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> lcdif: lcdif@30730000 {
> >> compatible = "fsl,imx7d-lcdif", "fsl,imx28-lcdif";
> >> reg = <0x30730000 0x10000>;
> >> @@ -718,6 +730,21 @@
> >> clock-names = "pix", "axi";
> >> status = "disabled";
> >> };
> >> +
> >> + mipi_csi: mipi-csi@30750000 {
> >> + compatible = "fsl,imx7-mipi-csi2";
> >> + reg = <0x30750000 0x10000>;
> >> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 25 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> >> + clocks = <&clks IMX7D_IPG_ROOT_CLK>,
> >> + <&clks IMX7D_MIPI_CSI_ROOT_CLK>,
> >> + <&clks IMX7D_MIPI_DPHY_ROOT_CLK>;
> >> + clock-names = "pclk", "wrap", "phy";
> >> + power-domains = <&pgc_mipi_phy>;
> >> + phy-supply = <®_1p0d>;
> >> + resets = <&src IMX7_RESET_MIPI_PHY_MRST>;
> >> + reset-names = "mrst";
> >> + status = "disabled";
> >
> > How about already declaring port@0 here too (but obviously
> > without any endoint) ?
>
> empty port, do not know if they make much sense.
The port describes the ability to connect. There's always a port@0 for
the CSI-2 receiver, so I would define it in imx7s.dtsi. If a system
doesn't connect any CSI-2 sensor then no endpoint will exist (and this
node will stay disabled anyway).
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
