Em 27-10-2010 13:53, Jiri Slaby escreveu:
> On 10/27/2010 05:41 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Hi Jiri,
>>
>> Em 27-10-2010 13:30, Jiri Slaby escreveu:
>>> On 10/27/2010 04:32 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>> Linus,
>>>>
>>>> Please pull from
>>>> ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mchehab/linux-2.6.git v4l_for_linus
>>> ...
>>>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab (72):
>>> ...
>>>> [media] tda18271: allow restricting max out to 4 bytes
>>>
>>> Even though you know this one breaks at least one driver you want it merged?
>>
>> We need to fix that issue with af9015, but, without this patch, cx231xx is broken, as it
>> doesn't accept more than 4 bytes per I2C transfer. I tested the patch here with some possible
>> restrictions for I2C size. Also, Mkrufky tested it with other different hardware.
>
> I think the rule is "no regressions". Was cx231xx broken by some recent
> change or was it broken forever?
>
> Anyway the patch itself is in -next as of next-20101019. What the hell
> is -next good for then if people skip it? (Yes, 10 workdays is too few
> for people to really test kernels. Especially when we are talking about
> DVB.)
>
>> What I don't understand is that the only change that this patch caused for af9015 is to change
>> the I2C max size that used to be 16. The patch I sent you reverted this behaviour, by using
>> the proper macro value, instead of a magic number, but you reported that this didn't fix your
>> problem.
>
> What about this hunk? Could it be a source of the problem?
> @@ -326,24 +352,7 @@ int tda18271_init_regs(struct dvb_frontend *fe)
> regs[R_EB22] = 0x48;
> regs[R_EB23] = 0xb0;
>
> - switch (priv->small_i2c) {
> - case TDA18271_08_BYTE_CHUNK_INIT:
> - tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x00, 0x08);
> - tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x08, 0x08);
> - tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x10, 0x08);
> - tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x18, 0x08);
> - tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x20, 0x07);
> - break;
> - case TDA18271_16_BYTE_CHUNK_INIT:
> - tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x00, 0x10);
> - tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x10, 0x10);
> - tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x20, 0x07);
> - break;
> - case TDA18271_39_BYTE_CHUNK_INIT:
> - default:
> tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x00, TDA18271_NUM_REGS);
> - break;
> - }
>
> /* setup agc1 gain */
> regs[R_EB17] = 0x00;
>
> Previously it wrote 3 values, now it writes only one.
No. Previously, the init_regs were manually breaking the 0x39 register initialization
on several calls to tda18271_write_regs().
What the patch did were to move the logic of breaking the data into smaller groups
to happen inside tda18271_write_regs().
So, while the old logic broke it on 3 writes, being the first one from registers
0x00 to 0x0f, the second from 0x10 to 0x1f and the third from 0x20 to 0x27, the new
code breaks it inside tda18271_write_regs().
The old logic is broken, since there are some parts of the code calling tda18271_write_regs()
with a size that were bigger than the maximum supported size.
If you take a look at the code, before this patch, you'll see places where more than the maximum
allowed size is used. For example:
http://git.linuxtv.org/media_tree.git?a=blob;f=drivers/media/common/tuners/tda18271-common.c;h=e1f678281a58d327752dfcf24dc72ccf1d93ff79;hb=1724c8fa7eb33d68898e060a08a8e6a88348b62f#l385
The driver is wring 11 values:
tda18271_write_regs(fe, R_EP3, 11);
This doesn't honor the max size of 8 bytes, if small_i2c = TDA18271_08_BYTE_CHUNK_INIT.
My patch basically did:
1) it moved the logic that restricts the maximum size to be inside tda18271_write_regs();
2) it added a new max size of 4 bytes;
3) It renamed the magic values associated with small_i2c.
Basically, af9015 broke due to (3), as .small_i2c = 1 means nothing. It should be using
.small_i2c = TDA18271_16_BYTE_CHUNK_INIT, instead.
What I don't understand is why a patch doing this change didn't fix the issue. Please
test the patch I posted on the original -next thread. Let's try to identify why
tda18271_write_regs() is not breaking the data into smaller writes.
Cheers,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
