On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 04:26:34PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 10/08/2023 16:11, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > Hi, > > > > just some nitpicks. Some of them were present before already but maybe > > you can prepend or append another cleanup patch while at it. :) > > > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 09:23:42PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > > > At the moment we define a single ov5640 sensor in the apq8016-sbc and > > > disable that sensor. > > > > > > The sensor mezzanine for this is a D3 Engineering Dual ov5640 mezzanine > > > card. Move the definition from the apq8016-sbc where it shouldn't be to a > > > standalone dts. > > > > > > > I wonder what would be required to implement this using a DT overlay, > > rather than a standalone separate DT? Seems like there are some .dtso > > files in upstream Linux. > > > > I'm also fine with the separate DTB personally, though. > > So, we've discussed that previously and its a good model, which I like and > which works well for RPI as an example. > > AFAIK though the runtime dtbo overlay is still missing at least one upstream > commit and the state of dtbo in qcom bootloaders is variable, probably good > in LK, good in u-boot and then I'd say nothing doing. > AFAIU there is work going on (at Linaro?) to move the qcom RBs to use U-Boot, so I guess that would be the easiest common base to work with. There is an U-Boot port for DB410c as well. > I'm hoping to transition the mezzanine dtb files to something "generic" for > boards that support 96 boards interfaces. > > Its a bit out of scope for this series as, all I really want to do here is > fixup obvious errors as I find them in camss and its dtbs. > Right, yeah I think it's fine to have the separate DTB for now. I was always confused about the disabled camera parts in apq8016-sbc, having it in a separate DTB is definitely less confusing. :) > So anyway the idea would be to define labels in the core board dts files for > stuff like "powerdown-gpios = <&tlmm 34 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;" I'm not sure > that's really feasible until its tried though. Handling the GPIOs sounds complicated... I think it would be also okay to have board-specific mezzanine overlays as a first step though. (i.e. one for DB410c, others for other compatible 96boards). > > Basically any mezzanine board would ideally only be defined once, with > 96boards supporting baseboards providing the necessary additional detail on > pins and regulators for the mezzanine to consume.. > > Come to think of it though you'd have to #include "myboard.dts" so maybe, > probably, that idea not feasible. > > dtbo would be better still but like I say I'm not presupposing a decent > bootloader that can apply the overlay. > > I/we will look again at dtbo since its just a neater model really. > Thanks, I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. :D Stephan
