On 2/28/20 2:27 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Steve,
Btw. I think probably a smaller list of recipients would be just fine on the
next version.
Yeah, I've been using get_maintainer.pl, without all the % LOC switches
to try and limit the distro list, but even with those switches I suspect
it will spam too many people.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 10:16:06AM -0800, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
Hi Sakari,
On 2/25/20 7:07 AM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Steve,
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:41:21AM -0800, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
Instead of allocating a notifier in v4l2_async_register_fwnode_subdev(),
have the caller provide one. This allows the caller to implement
notifier ops (bind, unbind).
The caller is now responsible for first initializing its notifier with a
call to v4l2_async_notifier_init().
Signed-off-by: Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@xxxxxxxxx>
Instead of improving v4l2_async_register_fwnode_subdev(), could you convert
the users (IMX driver in this case) to call the preferred APIs instead? As
the lines below show, v4l2_async_register_fwnode_subdev() has only two
users left --- the other one of which is the IMX driver. After converting
these two, we could just remove this API.
See e.g. drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu3/ipu3-cio2.c and
drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c for examples.
Shouldn't v4l2_async_notifier_add_fwnode_remote_subdev() check for the
availability of the remote before adding it to the notifier's asd list, as
in:
diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c
b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c
index 8bde33c21ce4..b48ed68c6c6c 100644
--- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c
+++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c
@@ -615,7 +615,7 @@ v4l2_async_notifier_add_fwnode_remote_subdev(struct
v4l2_async_notifier *notif,
int ret;
remote = fwnode_graph_get_remote_port_parent(endpoint);
- if (!remote)
+ if (!remote || !fwnode_device_is_available(remote))
return -ENOTCONN;
asd->match_type = V4L2_ASYNC_MATCH_FWNODE;
Otherwise we are back to the problem that the notifier will never complete
because the remote's driver is not probed.
fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id() only gives you endpoints that belong to an
enabled device (unless requested otherwise). So the there's need to check
the same in v4l2-fwnode.c.
Indeed it does, thanks! I was looking at
fwnode_graph_get_remote_port_parent() which does not make the enabled
remote device checks, but didn't notice that
fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_by_id() does, by default.
Steve
