On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:56:17PM +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > + Jacopo for his work on ov772x binding related to BT656 > > On 10/21/20 11:40 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Hi Hugues, > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:24:08PM +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote: > >> Hi Sakari, > >> > >> On 10/21/20 3:00 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >>> Hi Hugues, > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:14:49PM +0200, Hugues Fruchet wrote: > >>>> Add support of BT656 parallel bus mode in DCMI. > >>>> This mode is enabled when hsync-active & vsync-active > >>>> fields are not specified. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Hugues Fruchet <hugues.fruchet@xxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.yaml | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.yaml > >>>> index 3fe778c..1ee521a 100644 > >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.yaml > >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.yaml > >>>> @@ -44,6 +44,36 @@ properties: > >>>> bindings defined in > >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt. > >>>> > >>>> + properties: > >>>> + endpoint: > >>>> + type: object > >>>> + > >>>> + properties: > >>>> + bus-width: true > >>>> + > >>>> + hsync-active: > >>>> + description: > >>>> + If both HSYNC and VSYNC polarities are not specified, BT656 > >>>> + embedded synchronization is selected. > >>>> + default: 0 > >>>> + > >>>> + vsync-active: > >>>> + description: > >>>> + If both HSYNC and VSYNC polarities are not specified, BT656 > >>>> + embedded synchronization is selected. > >>>> + default: 0 > >>> > >>> Should I understand this as if the polarities were not specified, BT.656 > >>> will be used? > >> > >> Yes, this is what is documented in video-interfaces.txt: > >> " > >> Note, that if HSYNC and VSYNC polarities are not specified, embedded > >> synchronization may be required, where supported. > >> " > >> and > >> " > >> /* If hsync-active/vsync-active are missing, > >> embedded BT.656 sync is used */ > >> hsync-active = <0>; /* Active low */ > >> vsync-active = <0>; /* Active low */ > >> " > >> and I found also this in > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,vin.yaml > >> " > >> hsync-active: > >> description: > >> If both HSYNC and VSYNC polarities are not specified, > >> embedded > >> synchronization is selected. > >> default: 1 > >> > >> vsync-active: > >> description: > >> If both HSYNC and VSYNC polarities are not specified, > >> embedded > >> synchronization is selected. > >> default: 1 > > > > Having the defaults leads to somewhat weird behaviour: specifying the > > default value on either property changes the bus type. > > > >> " > >> > >> In the other hand I've found few occurences of "bus-type" > >> (marvell,mmp2-ccic.yaml), it is why I asked you if "bus-type" is the new > >> way to go versus previous way to signal BT656 (without hsync/vsync) ? > >> As explained previously, I prefer this last way for backward compatibility. > > > > If you have a default for bus-type (BT.601), this won't be a problem. > > > > The old DT bindings were somewhat, well, opportunistic. The v4l2-of > > framework-let did its best and sometimes it worked. The behaviour is still > > supported but not encouraged in new bindings. > > > > OK, so let's go for the new way. > I've found an interesting patch from Jacopo that is of great help: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20200910162055.614089-4-jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Here is a draft proposal before I push a new version, please comment: > > properties: > bus-type: > enum: [5, 6] > default: 5 > > bus-width: > enum: [8, 10, 12, 14] > default: 8 > > hsync-active: > enum: [0, 1] For common properties, you can assume there's a common schema. As 0 and 1 are the only possible values, you don't need to define them here unless only a subset is valid for this device. > default: 0 > > vsync-active: > enum: [0, 1] > default: 0 > > pclk-sample: > enum: [0, 1] > default: 0 > > remote-endpoint: true > > allOf: > - if: > properties: > bus-type: > const: 6 To fix the error, you need: required: - bus-type The problem is the above schema is also true if the property is not present. > then: > properties: > hsync-active: false > vsync-active: false > bus-width: > enum: [8] > > required: > - remote-endpoint > > unevaluatedProperties: false > > > Unfortunately, the "default: 5" for bus-type is not working !! > If we don't specify "bus-type" in example, dt_binding_check is failing > as if default was 6, it's hardly understandable (see below) ! > port { > dcmi_0: endpoint { > remote-endpoint = <&ov5640_0>; > bus-width = <10>; > hsync-active = <0>; > vsync-active = <0>; > pclk-sample = <1>; > }; > => this should be OK but error claimed: > DTC > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.example.dt.yaml > CHECK > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.example.dt.yaml > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.example.dt.yaml: > dcmi@4c006000: port:endpoint:vsync-active: False schema does not allow [[0]] > dcmi@4c006000: port:endpoint:hsync-active: False schema does not allow [[0]] > dcmi@4c006000: port:endpoint:bus-width:0:0: 10 is not one of [8] > From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.yaml > > => if "bus-type" is explicitly set to 5, all is fine (see below) ! > port { > dcmi_0: endpoint { > remote-endpoint = <&ov5640_0>; > bus-type = <5>; > bus-width = <10>; > hsync-active = <0>; > vsync-active = <0>; > pclk-sample = <1>; > }; > }; > > DTC > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.example.dt.yaml > CHECK > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/st,stm32-dcmi.example.dt.yaml > ~/.../media_tree$ > > > >> > >> > >> The bindings previously documented BT.601 (parallel) only, so > >>> it was somewhat ambigious to begin with. Is there a risk of interpreting > >>> old BT.601 bindings as BT.656? > >> I don't think so. > >> > >> With bus-type property, I believe you could > >>> avoid at least that risk. > >> yes but as explained, I'll prefer not to amend current boards device > >> tree files. > > > > I don't think it matters from this point of view --- you can have a > > default bus-type. > > > >> > >>> > >>> Also not specifying at least one of the default values leads to BT.656 > >>> without bus-type. That could be addressed by removing the defaults. > >>> > >> I'm new to yaml, I've taken that from renesas,vin.yaml. Should I just > >> drop the "default: 1" lines ? > > > > That's one option, yes. Then you have to have those for BT.601 and it's no > > longer ambiguous. > > > > BR, > Hugues.
