Hi Mauro,
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 03:23:59PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 8 Feb 2021 15:40:10 +0200 Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
> > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 02:31:50PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Em Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:11:02 +0100 Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu:
> > > > Em Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:41:42 +0100 Jacopo Mondi escreveu:
> > > >
> > > > > > > If you do, instead:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if VIDEO_V4L2 && I2C
> > > > > > > config VIDEO_MAX9271_SERIALIZER
> > > > > > > tristate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > config VIDEO_RDACM20
> > > > > > > select VIDEO_MAX9271_SERIALIZER
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > config VIDEO_RDACM21
> > > > > > > select VIDEO_MAX9271_SERIALIZER
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > endif
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then you also won't need:
> > > > > > > depends on VIDEO_MAX9271_SERIALIZER || !VIDEO_MAX9271_SERIALIZER
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As select should do the right thing in this case, ensuring that MAX9271
> > > > > > > will be builtin either if RDACM20 or RDACM21 is builtin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also vote for usage of "select".
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would prefer that too, I was concerned about possible un-met
> > > > > dependencies, as Sakari pointed out, but the current situation is no
> > > > > better, as the only Kconfig symbols where those can be listed are the
> > > > > camera modules one.
> > > >
> > > > Works for me. I'll make a patch for it.
> > >
> > > Hmm... after taking a deeper look at the rcma20 drivers, and on its
> > > Kconfig help text:
> > >
> > > config VIDEO_RDACM20
> > > tristate "IMI RDACM20 camera support"
> > > select V4L2_FWNODE
> > > select VIDEO_V4L2_SUBDEV_API
> > > select MEDIA_CONTROLLER
> > > help
> > > This driver supports the IMI RDACM20 GMSL camera, used in
> > > ADAS systems.
> > >
> > > This camera should be used in conjunction with a GMSL
> > > deserialiser such as the MAX9286.
> > >
> > > I'm starting to suspect that there's something very wrong here...
> > >
> > > The help text mentions the MAX9286 driver, which is a complete
> > > driver, and not MAX9271, which seems to implement a set of PHY functions
> > > needed by those drivers, and which lacks a proper I2C binding code on it.
> > >
> > > The I2C binding code is, instead, inside RDACM20 and RDACM21:
> > >
> > > static int rdacm21_initialize(struct rdacm21_device *dev)
> > > {
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > /* Verify communication with the MAX9271: ping to wakeup. */
> > > dev->serializer.client->addr = MAX9271_DEFAULT_ADDR;
> > > i2c_smbus_read_byte(dev->serializer.client);
> > > usleep_range(3000, 5000);
> > >
> > > /* Enable reverse channel and disable the serial link. */
> > > ret = max9271_set_serial_link(&dev->serializer, false);
> > > if (ret)
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > /* Configure I2C bus at 105Kbps speed and configure GMSL. */
> > > ret = max9271_configure_i2c(&dev->serializer,
> > > MAX9271_I2CSLVSH_469NS_234NS |
> > > MAX9271_I2CSLVTO_1024US |
> > > MAX9271_I2CMSTBT_105KBPS);
> > >
> > > /* Several other max9271-specific init code */
> > >
> > > ret = ov490_initialize(dev);
> > > if (ret)
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > And, at max9271 "driver", there's just a bunch of exported functions.
> > >
> > > This is all wrong.
> > >
> > > I'm seriously considering to move all those 3 drivers to staging,
> > > while they're not fixed to use a proper I2C binding mechanism.
> >
> > They can't. The RDACM20 and RDACM21 are GMSL cameras, that are
> > internally made of a GMSL serializer (MAX9271 in both cases) and a
> > camera sensor (OV10625 for the RDACM20, OV10640 + OV490 ISP for the
> > RDAMC21). The sensor and serializer are tightly couple, so much so that
> > in the RDACM20, there's a microcontroller that configures both when
> > power is applied. In the RDACM21, the OV490 firmware has a similar role.
> > Due to the tight coupling and the presense of a device-specific
> > microcontroller, the cameras need to be handled as a whole, we can't
> > have one driver for the sensor and one driver for the serializer that
> > would work in isolation and be controlled separately from userspace. The
> > MAX9271, however, still needs to be configured from the host, and we've
> > thus moved common code to a common file instead of duplicating it.
>
> I'm not saying that max9271 should expose a media-controller (or any
> other interface) to the userspace. It is perfectly fine to have the
> RDACM20 and RDACM21 drivers fully controlling it. There are *lots of*
> other media drivers that are implemented using multiple separate I2C
> chips. Several of them have internally micro-controller(s) that may
> control some I2C devices.
>
> There are even some DVB designs where there is a microcontroller
> (usually cypress) that it is connected to different I2C chips.
>
> For instance, 23 of them use a Cypress microcontroller:
>
> $ git grep -li cypress drivers/media/|grep .c$|wc -l
> 23
>
> The problem here is that the max9271 probing code is at the wrong
> place. It belongs to max9271 driver, and should not be outside
> it.
Could you then submit a patch with a fix, as the right solution has
clearly escaped 4 engineers working on this issue for 2 years ? :-)
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
