Hi Steve,
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 05:50:58PM -0700, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
>
>
> On 04/04/2017 05:47 AM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >Hi Steve, Philipp and Pavel,
> >
> >On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:40:34PM -0700, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
> >>From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>This driver can handle SoC internal and external video bus multiplexers,
> >>controlled either by register bit fields or by a GPIO. The subdevice
> >>passes through frame interval and mbus configuration of the active input
> >>to the output side.
> >
> >The MUX framework is already in linux-next. Could you use that instead of
> >adding new driver + bindings that are not compliant with the MUX framework?
> >I don't think it'd be much of a change in terms of code, using the MUX
> >framework appears quite simple.
>
> I would prefer to wait on this, and get what we have merged now so I can
> unload all these patches first.
The DT bindings will be different for this one and if you were using a MUX,
won't they? And you can't remove support for the existing bindings either,
you have to continue to support them going forward.
>
> Also this is Philipp's driver, so again I would prefer to get this
> merged as-is and then Philipp can address these issues in a future
> patch. But I will add my comments below...
I bet there will be more issues to handle if you were to do the changes
later than now.
...
> >>+static int vidsw_s_stream(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int enable)
> >>+{
> >>+ struct vidsw *vidsw = v4l2_subdev_to_vidsw(sd);
> >>+ struct v4l2_subdev *upstream_sd;
> >>+ struct media_pad *pad;
> >>+
> >>+ if (vidsw->active == -1) {
> >>+ dev_err(sd->dev, "Can not start streaming on inactive mux\n");
> >>+ return -EINVAL;
> >>+ }
> >>+
> >>+ pad = media_entity_remote_pad(&sd->entity.pads[vidsw->active]);
> >>+ if (!pad) {
> >>+ dev_err(sd->dev, "Failed to find remote source pad\n");
> >>+ return -ENOLINK;
> >>+ }
> >>+
> >>+ if (!is_media_entity_v4l2_subdev(pad->entity)) {
> >>+ dev_err(sd->dev, "Upstream entity is not a v4l2 subdev\n");
> >>+ return -ENODEV;
> >>+ }
> >>+
> >>+ upstream_sd = media_entity_to_v4l2_subdev(pad->entity);
> >>+
> >>+ return v4l2_subdev_call(upstream_sd, video, s_stream, enable);
> >
> >Now that we'll have more than two drivers involved in the same pipeline it
> >becomes necessary to define the behaviour of s_stream() throughout the
> >pipeline --- i.e. whose responsibility is it to call s_stream() on the
> >sub-devices in the pipeline?
>
> In the case of imx-media, the capture device calls set stream on the
> whole pipeline in the start_streaming() callback. This subdev call is
> actually a NOOP for imx-media, because the upstream entity has already
> started streaming. Again I think this should be removed. It also
> enforces a stream order that some MC drivers may have a problem with.
What I want to say here is that the order in which the different devices in
the pipeline need to be started may not be known in a driver for a
particular part of the pipeline.
In order to avoid trying to have a single point of decision making, the
s_stream() op implemented in sub-device drivers should serve the purpose.
I'll cc you for the documentation patch.
--
Kind regards,
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
