Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Add SDM670 camera subsystem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Hardward Monitoring]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux