Hi Richard, On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:36:28PM GMT, Richard Acayan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:09:34PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 10:04:49PM GMT, Richard Acayan wrote: > > > This adds support for the camera subsystem on the Snapdragon 670. > > > > > > As of next-20240902, camss seems to be a bit broken, but the same series > > > works on stable (although it is much less reliable now that the CCI clock > > > frequency is not being assigned). > > > > I am not understanding this bit: is this series making it better > > or not? Can you please clarify what is broken, what is less > > reliable and what works? > > When applying this camss series and some camera sensor patches on > linux-next, the Pixel 3a seems to hang when camera capture starts. > > When applying the same patches on stable, the camera does not cause the > Pixel 3a to hang. > > When these device tree properties from the previous series were removed: > > assigned-clocks = <&camcc CAM_CC_CCI_CLK>; > assigned-clock-rates = <37500000>; > > the CCI would sometimes fail to probe with the error: > > [ 51.572732] i2c-qcom-cci ac4a000.cci: deferred probe timeout, ignoring dependency > [ 51.572769] i2c-qcom-cci ac4a000.cci: probe with driver i2c-qcom-cci failed with error -110 > > On further testing, the rate can be set to 19.2 MHz, and there would be > no failure (or rather, it wouldn't happen often enough for me to witness > it). > > > Besides, I'm reading that this series has not been tested and it > > makes it difficult for me to take this in, considering that you > > are adding a new support. > > Of course. This revision of the series wasn't submitted to rush into > v6.12-rc1. It can wait until everything is resolved. > > When device tree maintainers comment "not tested" on the documentation, > it usually means that `make dt_bindings_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=...` gives > errors or warnings (even though the device tree and driver may work on > the hardware). It's a separate test and one of the things I haven't > scripted into my workflow, although it's still a responsibility. OK, thanks for clarifying. Then, please, next time, to avoid confusion, make it an RFC; or, if the series is in an advanced state with little things to improve, state it clearly in the cover letter or after the '---' section. For now, thanks a lot, I will keep the R-b's for the time being (unless the reviewers are against) and I will wait for you to know the outcome of the tests. Andi
