Hi,
On 30/08/2024 10:00, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
Add support for TI DS90UB954 FPD-Link III Deserializer.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan <eagle.alexander923@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig | 2 +-
drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig b/drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig
index 8ba096b8ebca..18766898280b 100644
--- a/drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig
@@ -1604,7 +1604,7 @@ config VIDEO_DS90UB960
select V4L2_FWNODE
select VIDEO_V4L2_SUBDEV_API
help
- Device driver for the Texas Instruments DS90UB960
+ Device driver for the Texas Instruments DS90UB954/DS90UB960
FPD-Link III Deserializer and DS90UB9702 FPD-Link IV Deserializer.
config VIDEO_MAX96714
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
index e9f9abf439ee..9edc7e8ceebd 100644
--- a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
+++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
@@ -403,6 +403,7 @@
#define UB960_NUM_EQ_LEVELS (UB960_MAX_EQ_LEVEL - UB960_MIN_EQ_LEVEL + 1)
enum chip_type {
+ UB954,
UB960,
UB9702,
};
@@ -1154,10 +1155,17 @@ static int ub960_parse_dt_txport(struct ub960_data *priv,
priv->tx_link_freq[0] = vep.link_frequencies[0];
priv->tx_data_rate = priv->tx_link_freq[0] * 2;
- if (priv->tx_data_rate != MHZ(1600) &&
- priv->tx_data_rate != MHZ(1200) &&
- priv->tx_data_rate != MHZ(800) &&
- priv->tx_data_rate != MHZ(400)) {
+ switch (priv->tx_data_rate) {
+ case MHZ(1600):
+ case MHZ(800):
+ case MHZ(400):
+ break;
+ case MHZ(1200):
+ /* UB954 does not support 1.2 Gbps */
+ if (priv->hw_data->chip_type != UB954)
+ break;
Here, and in a few other places, don't check for model != UB954, but
rather check for model == UB954. Otherwise if we add a new chip model
these won't necessarily go right.
+ fallthrough;
+ default:
dev_err(dev, "tx%u: invalid 'link-frequencies' value\n", nport);
ret = -EINVAL;
goto err_free_vep;
@@ -1419,7 +1427,7 @@ static void ub960_rxport_config_eq(struct ub960_data *priv, unsigned int nport)
if (priv->strobe.manual)
ub960_rxport_set_strobe_pos(priv, nport, rxport->eq.strobe_pos);
- else
+ else if (priv->hw_data->chip_type != UB954)
ub960_rxport_set_strobe_pos(priv, nport, 0);
This looks odd. Manually set strobe pos is ok, but not the default?
What is the reason for this if?
if (rxport->eq.manual_eq) {
@@ -3807,7 +3815,7 @@ static int ub960_enable_core_hw(struct ub960_data *priv)
u8 rev_mask;
int ret;
u8 dev_sts;
- u8 refclk_freq;
+ u8 refclk_freq[2];
Instead of an array, I think the code will be clearer if you just add a
new variable (refclk_freq_new?).
ret = regulator_enable(priv->vddio);
if (ret)
@@ -3839,6 +3847,9 @@ static int ub960_enable_core_hw(struct ub960_data *priv)
}
switch (priv->hw_data->chip_type) {
+ case UB954:
+ model = "UB954";
+ break;
case UB960:
model = "UB960";
break;
@@ -3856,12 +3867,26 @@ static int ub960_enable_core_hw(struct ub960_data *priv)
if (ret)
goto err_pd_gpio;
- ret = ub960_read(priv, UB960_XR_REFCLK_FREQ, &refclk_freq);
+ ret = ub960_read(priv, UB960_XR_REFCLK_FREQ, &refclk_freq[0]);
if (ret)
goto err_pd_gpio;
+ /* From DS90UB954-Q1 datasheet:
+ * "REFCLK_FREQ measurement is not synchronized. Value in this register
+ * should read twice and only considered valid if
+ * REFCLK_FREQ is unchanged between reads."
+ */
The coding style says the multiline comments are like:
/*
* Foo
*/
+ while (priv->hw_data->chip_type == UB954) {
+ ret = ub960_read(priv, UB960_XR_REFCLK_FREQ, &refclk_freq[1]);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_pd_gpio;
+ if (refclk_freq[0] == refclk_freq[1])
+ break;
+ refclk_freq[0] = refclk_freq[1];
+ };
This is potentially an infinite loop, which is not a good idea. Also,
don't loop with "while (priv->hw_data->chip_type == UB954)"... Just use
an if for the chip_type, and loop with a proper condition.
+
dev_dbg(dev, "refclk valid %u freq %u MHz (clk fw freq %lu MHz)\n",
- !!(dev_sts & BIT(4)), refclk_freq,
+ !!(dev_sts & BIT(4)), refclk_freq[0],
clk_get_rate(priv->refclk) / 1000000);
/* Disable all RX ports by default */
@@ -3923,7 +3948,8 @@ static int ub960_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
*/
priv->reg_current.indirect_target = 0xff;
priv->reg_current.rxport = 0xff;
- priv->reg_current.txport = 0xff;
+ /* Avoid using UB960_SR_CSI_PORT_SEL register for single TX channel */
+ priv->reg_current.txport = priv->hw_data->num_txports > 1 ? 0xff : 0x00;
No, don't do this. Just do a proper check in ub960_txport_select() and
skip the reg write there.
Tomi
ret = ub960_get_hw_resources(priv);
if (ret)
@@ -4031,6 +4057,12 @@ static void ub960_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
mutex_destroy(&priv->reg_lock);
}
+static const struct ub960_hw_data ds90ub954_hw = {
+ .chip_type = UB954,
+ .num_rxports = 2,
+ .num_txports = 1,
+};
+
static const struct ub960_hw_data ds90ub960_hw = {
.chip_type = UB960,
.num_rxports = 4,
@@ -4045,6 +4077,7 @@ static const struct ub960_hw_data ds90ub9702_hw = {
};
static const struct i2c_device_id ub960_id[] = {
+ { "ds90ub954-q1", (kernel_ulong_t)&ds90ub954_hw },
{ "ds90ub960-q1", (kernel_ulong_t)&ds90ub960_hw },
{ "ds90ub9702-q1", (kernel_ulong_t)&ds90ub9702_hw },
{}
@@ -4052,6 +4085,7 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id ub960_id[] = {
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, ub960_id);
static const struct of_device_id ub960_dt_ids[] = {
+ { .compatible = "ti,ds90ub954-q1", .data = &ds90ub954_hw },
{ .compatible = "ti,ds90ub960-q1", .data = &ds90ub960_hw },
{ .compatible = "ti,ds90ub9702-q1", .data = &ds90ub9702_hw },
{}
