Hi Laurent, On 19-05-16 19:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hello Marco, > > Thank you for the patch. Thanks for the review. > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 03:20:04PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Mon, 6 May 2019 12:10:41 +0200 Hans Verkuil escreveu: > > > On 4/15/19 2:44 PM, Marco Felsch wrote: > > > > The patch adds the initial connector parsing code, so we can move from a > > > > driver specific parsing code to a generic one. Currently only the > > > > generic fields and the analog-connector specific fields are parsed. Parsing > > > > the other connector specific fields can be added by a simple callbacks. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10794703/ > > > > > > > > v6: > > > > - use 'unsigned int' count var > > > > - fix comment and style issues > > > > - place '/* fall through */' to correct places > > > > - fix error handling and cleanup by releasing fwnode > > > > - drop vga and dvi parsing support as those connectors are rarely used > > > > these days > > > > > > > > v5: > > > > - s/strlcpy/strscpy/ > > > > > > > > v2-v4: > > > > - nothing since the patch was squashed from series [1] into this > > > > series. > > > > > > > > drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c | 111 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > include/media/v4l2-fwnode.h | 16 ++++ > > > > 2 files changed, 127 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c > > > > index 20571846e636..f1cca95c8fef 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c > > > > @@ -592,6 +592,117 @@ void v4l2_fwnode_put_link(struct v4l2_fwnode_link *link) > > > > } > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_fwnode_put_link); > > > > > > > > +static const struct v4l2_fwnode_connector_conv { > > > > + enum v4l2_connector_type type; > > > > + const char *name; > > Maybe compatible instead of name ? Okay, I can change that. > > > > +} connectors[] = { > > > > + { > > > > + .type = V4L2_CON_COMPOSITE, > > > > + .name = "composite-video-connector", > > > > + }, { > > > > + .type = V4L2_CON_SVIDEO, > > > > + .name = "svideo-connector", > > > > + }, { > > > > + .type = V4L2_CON_HDMI, > > > > + .name = "hdmi-connector", > > > > + }, > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > +static enum v4l2_connector_type > > > > +v4l2_fwnode_string_to_connector_type(const char *con_str) > > > > +{ > > > > + unsigned int i; > > > > + > > > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(connectors); i++) > > > > + if (!strcmp(con_str, connectors[i].name)) > > > > + return connectors[i].type; > > > > + > > > > + /* no valid connector found */ > > The usual comment style in this file is to start with a capital letter > and end sentences with a period. I would however drop this comment, it's > not very useful. The other comments should be updated accordingly. > I will change my comments and drop this one. > > > > + return V4L2_CON_UNKNOWN; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static int > > > > +v4l2_fwnode_connector_parse_analog(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, > > > > + struct v4l2_fwnode_connector *vc) > > > > +{ > > > > + u32 tvnorms; > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "tvnorms", &tvnorms); > > > > + > > > > + /* tvnorms is optional */ > > > > + vc->connector.analog.supported_tvnorms = ret ? V4L2_STD_ALL : tvnorms; > > > > + > > > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > > > + > > Please document all exported functions with kerneldoc. It is documented within the header file. To be aligned with the other functions I wouldn't change that. > > > > +int v4l2_fwnode_parse_connector(struct fwnode_handle *__fwnode, > > > > + struct v4l2_fwnode_connector *connector) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; > > > > + struct fwnode_endpoint __ep; > > > > + const char *c_type_str, *label; > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > + memset(connector, 0, sizeof(*connector)); > > > > + > > > > + fwnode = fwnode_graph_get_remote_port_parent(__fwnode); > > I would rename the argument __fwnode to fwnode, and rename the fwnode > variable to remote (or similar) to make this clearer. Okay. > > > > > + if (!fwnode) > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > Is EINVAL the right error here ? Wouldn't it be useful for the caller to > differentiate between unconnected connector nodes and invalid ones ? Yes it would. Should I return ENOLINK instead? > > > > > + > > > > + /* parse all common properties first */ > > > > + /* connector-type is stored within the compatible string */ > > > > + ret = fwnode_property_read_string(fwnode, "compatible", &c_type_str); > > Prefixing or postfixing names with types is usually frowned upon. You > could rename this to type_name for instance. Okay. > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > + fwnode_handle_put(fwnode); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + connector->type = v4l2_fwnode_string_to_connector_type(c_type_str); > > > > + > > > > + fwnode_graph_parse_endpoint(__fwnode, &__ep); > > > > + connector->remote_port = __ep.port; > > > > + connector->remote_id = __ep.id; > > > > + > > > > + ret = fwnode_property_read_string(fwnode, "label", &label); > > > > + if (!ret) { > > > > + /* ensure label doesn't exceed V4L2_CONNECTOR_MAX_LABEL size */ > > > > + strscpy(connector->label, label, V4L2_CONNECTOR_MAX_LABEL); > > > > + } else { > > > > + /* > > > > + * labels are optional, if none is given create one: > > > > + * <connector-type-string>@port<endpoint_port>/ep<endpoint_id> > > > > + */ > > > > + snprintf(connector->label, V4L2_CONNECTOR_MAX_LABEL, > > > > + "%s@port%u/ep%u", c_type_str, connector->remote_port, > > > > + connector->remote_id); > > Should we really try to create labels when none is available ? If so > this needs much more careful thoughts, we need to think about what the > label will be used for, and create a good naming scheme accordingly. If > the label will be displayed to the end-user I don't think the above name > would be very useful, it would be best to leave it empty and let > applications create a name based on the connector type and other > information they have at their disposal. Hm.. I don't have a strong opinion on that. If the others are with you I will leave it empty. > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + /* now parse the connector specific properties */ > > > > + switch (connector->type) { > > > > + case V4L2_CON_COMPOSITE: > > > > + /* fall through */ > > I don't think you need a fall-through comment when the two cases are > adjacent with no line in-between. Hm.. I don't know the compiler behaviour. According the official gcc documentation [1] I would not leave that. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html > > > > > + case V4L2_CON_SVIDEO: > > > > + ret = v4l2_fwnode_connector_parse_analog(fwnode, connector); > > > > + break; > > > > + case V4L2_CON_HDMI: > > > > + pr_warn("Connector specific parsing is currently not supported for %s\n", > > > > + c_type_str); > > > > > > Why warn? Just drop this. > > > > good point. I would prefer to have some warning here, in order to warn a > > developer that might be using it that this part of the code would require > > some change. > > > > perhaps pr_warn_once()? > > > > > > + ret = 0; > > > > + break; > > If it's not supported we should warn and return an error. Otherwise we > should be silent and return success. Combining a warning with success > isn't a good idea, this is either a normal case or an error, not both. The generic part still applies and is valid. That was the reason why I did return success. > > > > + case V4L2_CON_UNKNOWN: > > > > + /* fall through */ > > > > + default: > > > > + pr_err("Unknown connector type\n"); > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + }; > > > > + > > > > + fwnode_handle_put(fwnode); > > > > + > > > > + return ret; > > > > +} > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_fwnode_parse_connector); > > > > + > > > > static int > > > > v4l2_async_notifier_fwnode_parse_endpoint(struct device *dev, > > > > struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier, > > > > diff --git a/include/media/v4l2-fwnode.h b/include/media/v4l2-fwnode.h > > > > index f4df1b95c5ef..e072f2915ddb 100644 > > > > --- a/include/media/v4l2-fwnode.h > > > > +++ b/include/media/v4l2-fwnode.h > > > > @@ -269,6 +269,22 @@ int v4l2_fwnode_parse_link(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, > > > > */ > > > > void v4l2_fwnode_put_link(struct v4l2_fwnode_link *link); > > > > > > And I see here that the function is documented. One more reason to move > kerneldoc to the .c files... Please check my comment above. > > > > +/** > > > > + * v4l2_fwnode_parse_connector() - parse the connector on endpoint > > > > + * @fwnode: pointer to the endpoint's fwnode handle where the connector is > > > > + * connected to > > This is very unclear, I would interpret that as the remote endpoint, not > the local endpoint. Could you please try to clarify the documentation ? Hm.. I have no good idea how I should describe it.. """ The device (local) endpoint fwnode handle on which the connector is connected to using the remote-enpoint property. """ Regards, Marco > > > > + * @connector: pointer to the V4L2 fwnode connector data structure > > > > + * > > > > + * Fill the connector data structure with the connector type, label and the > > > > + * endpoint id and port where the connector belongs to. If no label is present > > > > + * a unique one will be created. Labels with more than 40 characters are cut. > > > > + * > > > > + * Return: %0 on success or a negative error code on failure: > > > > + * %-EINVAL on parsing failure > > > > + */ > > > > +int v4l2_fwnode_parse_connector(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, > > > > + struct v4l2_fwnode_connector *connector); > > > > + > > > > /** > > > > * typedef parse_endpoint_func - Driver's callback function to be called on > > > > * each V4L2 fwnode endpoint. > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
