Hi Laurent - thanks for the comments
On 18/12/2020 16:53, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> +static void cio2_bridge_init_property_names(struct cio2_sensor *sensor)
>> +{
>> + strscpy(sensor->prop_names.clock_frequency, "clock-frequency",
>> + sizeof(sensor->prop_names.clock_frequency));
>> + strscpy(sensor->prop_names.rotation, "rotation",
>> + sizeof(sensor->prop_names.rotation));
>> + strscpy(sensor->prop_names.bus_type, "bus-type",
>> + sizeof(sensor->prop_names.bus_type));
>> + strscpy(sensor->prop_names.data_lanes, "data-lanes",
>> + sizeof(sensor->prop_names.data_lanes));
>> + strscpy(sensor->prop_names.remote_endpoint, "remote-endpoint",
>> + sizeof(sensor->prop_names.remote_endpoint));
>> + strscpy(sensor->prop_names.link_frequencies, "link-frequencies",
>> + sizeof(sensor->prop_names.link_frequencies));
>
> Just curious, was there anything not working correctly with the proposal
> I made ?
>
> static const struct cio2_property_names prop_names = {
> .clock_frequency = "clock-frequency",
> .rotation = "rotation",
> .bus_type = "bus-type",
> .data_lanes = "data-lanes",
> .remote_endpoint = "remote-endpoint",
> };
>
> static void cio2_bridge_init_property_names(struct cio2_sensor *sensor)
> {
> sensor->prop_names = prop_names;
> }
>
> It generates a warning when the string is too long for the field size,
> which should help catching issues at compilation time.
Yes, though I don't know how much of a real-world problem it would have
been - if you recall we have the issue that the device grabs a reference
to the software_nodes (after we stopped delaying until after the
i2c_client is available), which means we can't safely free the
cio2_bridge struct on module unload. That also means we can't rely on
those pointers to string literals existing, because if the ipu3-cio2
module gets unloaded they'll be gone.
Shame, as it's way neater.
>> +static void cio2_bridge_init_swnode_names(struct cio2_sensor *sensor)
>> +{
>> + snprintf(sensor->node_names.remote_port, 7, "port@%u", sensor->ssdb.link);
>> + strscpy(sensor->node_names.port, "port@0", sizeof(sensor->node_names.port));
>> + strscpy(sensor->node_names.endpoint, "endpoint@0", sizeof(sensor->node_names.endpoint));
>
> I'd wrap lines, but maybe that's because I'm an old-school, 80-columns
> programmer :-)
Heh sure, I'll wrap them.
>> +static int cio2_bridge_connect_sensors(struct cio2_bridge *bridge,
>> + struct pci_dev *cio2)
>> +{
>> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
>> + struct cio2_sensor *sensor;
>> + struct acpi_device *adev;
>> + unsigned int i;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cio2_supported_sensors); i++) {
>> + const struct cio2_sensor_config *cfg = &cio2_supported_sensors[i];
>> +
>> + for_each_acpi_dev_match(adev, cfg->hid, NULL, -1) {
>> + if (bridge->n_sensors >= CIO2_NUM_PORTS) {
>> + dev_warn(&cio2->dev, "Exceeded available CIO2 ports\n");
>> + /* overflow i so outer loop ceases */
>> + i = ARRAY_SIZE(cio2_supported_sensors);
>> + break;
>
> Or just
>
> return 0;
>
> ?
Derp, yes of course.
>> +/* Data representation as it is in ACPI SSDB buffer */
>> +struct cio2_sensor_ssdb {
>> + u8 version; /* 0000 */
>> + u8 sku; /* 0001 */
>> + u8 guid_csi2[16]; /* 0002 */
>> + u8 devfunction; /* 0003 */
>> + u8 bus; /* 0004 */
>> + u32 dphylinkenfuses; /* 0005 */
>> + u32 clockdiv; /* 0009 */
>> + u8 link; /* 0013 */
>> + u8 lanes; /* 0014 */
>> + u32 csiparams[10]; /* 0015 */
>> + u32 maxlanespeed; /* 0019 */
>> + u8 sensorcalibfileidx; /* 0023 */
>> + u8 sensorcalibfileidxInMBZ[3]; /* 0024 */
>> + u8 romtype; /* 0025 */
>> + u8 vcmtype; /* 0026 */
>> + u8 platforminfo; /* 0027 */
>
> Why stop at 27 ? :-) I'd either go all the way, or not at all. It's also
> quite customary to represent offset as hex values, as that's what most
> hex editors / viewers will show.
Oops - that was actually just me debugging...I guess I might actually
finish it, converted to hex. It came in useful reading the DSDT to have
that somewhere easy to refer to.
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Nice - thank you!
