Hi Sakari,
On 4.08.2017 21:02, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Todor,
>
> Todor Tomov wrote:
>> Hi Sakari,
>>
>> Thank you for the review.
>>
>> On 20.07.2017 17:59, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>>> Hi Todor,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:33:36PM +0300, Todor Tomov wrote:
>>>> These files control the VFE module. The VFE has different input interfaces.
>>>> The PIX input interface feeds the input data to an image processing pipeline.
>>>> Three RDI input interfaces bypass the image processing pipeline. The VFE also
>>>> contains the AXI bus interface which writes the output data to memory.
>>>>
>>>> RDI interfaces are supported in this version. PIX interface is not supported.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Todor Tomov <todor.tomov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss-8x16/camss-vfe.c | 1913 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss-8x16/camss-vfe.h | 114 ++
>>>> 2 files changed, 2027 insertions(+)
>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss-8x16/camss-vfe.c
>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss-8x16/camss-vfe.h
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss-8x16/camss-vfe.c b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss-8x16/camss-vfe.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..b6dd29b
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/camss-8x16/camss-vfe.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,1913 @@
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +static void vfe_set_qos(struct vfe_device *vfe)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u32 val = 0xaaa5aaa5;
>>>> + u32 val7 = 0x0001aaa5;
>>>
>>> Huh. What do these mean? :-)
>>
>> For these here I don't have understanding of the values. I'll remove the magic
>> values here and on all the other places but these here I'll just move to a #define.
>
> If there is no documentation then I guess that's all that can be done.
> Works for me.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + writel_relaxed(val, vfe->base + VFE_0_BUS_BDG_QOS_CFG_0);
>>>> + writel_relaxed(val, vfe->base + VFE_0_BUS_BDG_QOS_CFG_1);
>>>> + writel_relaxed(val, vfe->base + VFE_0_BUS_BDG_QOS_CFG_2);
>>>> + writel_relaxed(val, vfe->base + VFE_0_BUS_BDG_QOS_CFG_3);
>>>> + writel_relaxed(val, vfe->base + VFE_0_BUS_BDG_QOS_CFG_4);
>>>> + writel_relaxed(val, vfe->base + VFE_0_BUS_BDG_QOS_CFG_5);
>>>> + writel_relaxed(val, vfe->base + VFE_0_BUS_BDG_QOS_CFG_6);
>>>> + writel_relaxed(val7, vfe->base + VFE_0_BUS_BDG_QOS_CFG_7);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * msm_vfe_subdev_init - Initialize VFE device structure and resources
>>>> + * @vfe: VFE device
>>>> + * @res: VFE module resources table
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Return 0 on success or a negative error code otherwise
>>>> + */
>>>> +int msm_vfe_subdev_init(struct vfe_device *vfe, const struct resources *res)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct device *dev = to_device(vfe);
>>>> + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
>>>> + struct resource *r;
>>>> + struct camss *camss = to_camss(vfe);
>>>> +
>>>> + int i;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + mutex_init(&vfe->power_lock);
>>>> + vfe->power_count = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + mutex_init(&vfe->stream_lock);
>>>> + vfe->stream_count = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + spin_lock_init(&vfe->output_lock);
>>>> +
>>>> + vfe->id = 0;
>>>> + vfe->reg_update = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = VFE_LINE_RDI0; i <= VFE_LINE_RDI2; i++) {
>>>> + vfe->line[i].video_out.type =
>>>> + V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE_MPLANE;
>>>> + vfe->line[i].video_out.camss = camss;
>>>> + vfe->line[i].id = i;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Memory */
>>>> +
>>>> + r = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, res->reg[0]);
>>>> + vfe->base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, r);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(vfe->base)) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "could not map memory\n");
>>>
>>> mutex_destroy() for bothof the mutexes. The same below.
>>>
>>> Do you have a corresponding cleanup function?
>>
>> msm_vfe_subdev_init() and msm_vfe_register_entities() are called on probe().
>> msm_vfe_unregister_entities() is called on remove() - this is the cleanup
>> function. The mutexes are destroyed there. Is there something else that you
>> are concerned about?
>
> What about the error case above then? Where are the mutexes destroyed?
>
Right, I'll add mutex_destroy() for the error cases too.
--
Best regards,
Todor Tomov
