Hi,
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 22:29:14 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Em Sun, 7 Jun 2009 08:40:08 +0200
> Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> > On Saturday 06 June 2009 22:40:21 Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > > Hi Hans,
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 06 June 2009 14:49:46 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday 06 June 2009 13:59:19 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday 29 May 2009 09:33:21 Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > > > > > > # HG changeset patch
> > > > > > > # User Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > # Date 1243414605 -10800
> > > > > > > # Branch export
> > > > > > > # Node ID 4fb354645426f8b187c2c90cd8528b2518461005
> > > > > > > # Parent 142fd6020df3b4d543068155e49a2618140efa49
> > > > > > > Device drivers of v4l2_subdev devices may want to have
> > > > > > > board specific data. This patch adds an helper function
> > > > > > > to allow bridge drivers to pass board specific data to
> > > > > > > v4l2_subdev drivers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For those drivers which need to support kernel versions
> > > > > > > bellow 2.6.26, a .s_config callback was added. The
> > > > > > > idea of this callback is to pass board configuration
> > > > > > > as well. In that case, subdev driver should set .s_config
> > > > > > > properly, because v4l2_i2c_new_subdev_board will call
> > > > > > > the .s_config directly. Of course, if we are >= 2.6.26,
> > > > > > > the same data will be passed through i2c board info as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Eduardo,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I finally had some time to look at this. After some thought
> > > > > > I realized that the main problem is really that the API is
> > > > > > becoming quite messy. Basically there are 9 different ways
> > > > > > of loading and initializing a subdev:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First there are three basic initialization calls: no
> > > > > > initialization, passing irq and platform_data, and passing
> > > > > > the i2c_board_info struct directly (preferred for drivers
> > > > > > that don't need pre-2.6.26 compatibility).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And for each flavor you would like to see three different
> > > > > > versions as well: one with a fixed known i2c address, one
> > > > > > where you probe for a list of addresses, and one where you
> > > > > > can probe for a single i2c address.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I propose to change the API as follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #define V4L2_I2C_ADDRS(addr, addrs...) \
> > > > > > ((const unsigned short []){ addr, ## addrs,
> > > > > > I2C_CLIENT_END })
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct v4l2_subdev *v4l2_i2c_new_subdev(struct v4l2_device
> > > > > > *v4l2_dev, struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
> > > > > > const char *module_name, const char
> > > > > > *client_type, u8 addr, const unsigned short *addrs);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct v4l2_subdev *v4l2_i2c_new_subdev_cfg(struct
> > > > > > v4l2_device *v4l2_dev, struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
> > > > > > const char *module_name, const char
> > > > > > *client_type, int irq, void *platform_data,
> > > > > > u8 addr, const unsigned short *addrs);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* Only available for kernels >= 2.6.26 */
> > > > > > struct v4l2_subdev *v4l2_i2c_new_subdev_board(struct
> > > > > > v4l2_device *v4l2_dev, struct i2c_adapter *adapter, const
> > > > > > char *module_name, struct i2c_board_info *info, const
> > > > > > unsigned short *addrs);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you use a fixed address, then only set addr (or
> > > > > > info.addr) and set addrs to NULL. If you want to probe for
> > > > > > a list of addrs, then set addrs to the list of addrs. If
> > > > > > you want to probe for a single addr, then use
> > > > > > V4L2_I2C_ADDRS(addr) as the addrs argument. This constructs
> > > > > > an array with just two entries. Actually, this macro can
> > > > > > also create arrays with more entries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that v4l2_i2c_new_subdev will be an inline that calls
> > > > > > v4l2_i2c_new_subdev_cfg with 0, NULL for the irq and
> > > > > > platform_data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And for kernels >= 2.6.26 v4l2_i2c_new_subdev_cfg can be an
> > > > > > inline calling v4l2_i2c_new_subdev_board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This approach reduces the number of functions to just one
> > > > > > (not counting the inlines) and simplifies things all
> > > > > > around. It does mean that all sources need to be changed,
> > > > > > but if we go this route, then now is the time before the
> > > > > > 2.6.31 window is closed. And I would also like to remove
> > > > > > the '_new' from these function names. I never thought it
> > > > > > added anything useful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comments? If we decide to go this way, then I need to know
> > > > > > soon so that I can make the changes before the 2.6.31
> > > > > > window closes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, if the new s_config subdev call is present, then it
> > > > > > should always be called. That way the subdev driver can
> > > > > > safely do all of its initialization in s_config, no matter
> > > > > > how it was initialized.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry about the long delay in replying to this: it's been
> > > > > > very hectic lately at the expense of my v4l-dvb work.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've done the initial conversion to the new API (no _cfg or
> > > > > _board version yet) in my ~hverkuil/v4l-dvb-subdev tree. It
> > > > > really simplifies things and if nobody objects then I'd like
> > > > > to get this in before 2.6.31.
>
> No please. We did already lots of change due to the i2c changes, and
> there are still some occasional complaints at ML about regressions
> that might be due to i2c changes.
>
> Let's keep 2.6.31 clean, as previously agreed, without new KABI
> changes. We should focus 2.6.31 on fixing any core issues that may
> still have. Only with 2.6.30 we'll start to have feedbacks from
> normal users.
>
> > > >
> > > > I've added the new _cfg and _board fucntions as well in this
> > > > tree. It needs a bit of a cleanup before I can do a pull
> > > > request (the last two patches should be merged to one), but
> > > > otherwise this is the code as I think it should be:
> > > >
> > > > /* Construct an I2C_CLIENT_END-terminated array of i2c
> > > > addresses on the fly */
> > > > #define V4L2_I2C_ADDRS(addr, addrs...) \
> > > > ((const unsigned short []){ addr, ## addrs,
> > > > I2C_CLIENT_END })
> > > >
> > > > /* Load an i2c module and return an initialized v4l2_subdev
> > > > struct. Only call request_module if module_name != NULL.
> > > > The client_type argument is the name of the chip that's on the
> > > > adapter. */
> > > > struct v4l2_subdev *v4l2_i2c_new_subdev_cfg(struct v4l2_device
> > > > *v4l2_dev, struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
> > > > const char *module_name, const char *client_type,
> > > > int irq, void *platform_data,
> > > > u8 addr, const unsigned short *addrs);
> > > >
> > > > static inline struct v4l2_subdev *v4l2_i2c_new_subdev(
> > > > struct v4l2_device *v4l2_dev,
> > > > struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
> > > > const char *module_name, const char *client_type,
> > > > u8 addr, const unsigned short *addrs)
> > > > {
> > > > return v4l2_i2c_new_subdev_cfg(v4l2_dev, adapter,
> > > > module_name, client_type, 0, NULL, addr, addrs);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 26)
> > > > struct i2c_board_info;
> > > >
> > > > struct v4l2_subdev *v4l2_i2c_new_subdev_board(struct v4l2_device
> > > > *v4l2_dev, struct i2c_adapter *adapter, const char
> > > > *module_name, struct i2c_board_info *info, const unsigned short
> > > > *addrs); #endif
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Hans
> > >
> > > I've cloned your tree and took a look at your code. Well, looks
> > > like the proper way to do this change.
> > > I didn't take this approach because it touchs other drivers.
> > > However, concentrating the code in only one
> > > function is better. I also saw that you have fixed the kernel
> > > version check in the v4l2_device_unregister
> > > function. Great!
> > >
> > > I will resend my series without this patch. I will rebase it on
> > > top of your subdev tree so the new api
> > > can be used straight. Is that ok?
> >
> > Yes, sure. Just be aware that there may be some small changes to my
> > patch based on feedback I get. But it is a good test anyway of this
> > API to see if it works well for you.
>
> Eduardo,
>
> Let's analyze and merge your changes using the current development
> tree. If you think that Hans approach is better (I haven't analyzed
> it yet), then it can later be converted to the new approach
>
I have talked with Eduardo during last week and if there is no
objections, I am ready to request a pull from the current/last
patches series.
Cheers,
Douglas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
