Hi Sylwester, On Wednesday 18 July 2012 21:53:34 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > On 07/18/2012 10:17 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > >> On 07/16/2012 11:13 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > >>> On Fri, 25 May 2012, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > >>>> Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki<s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Karol Lewandowski<k.lewandowsk@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park<kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>> From the documentation below I think, I understand what it does, but > >>> why > >>> > >>> is it needed? It doesn't describe your video subsystem topology, right? > >>> How various subdevices are connected. It just lists them all in one > >>> node... A description for this patch would be very welcome IMHO and, > >>> maybe, such a node can be completely avoided? > >> > >> Sorry, I'll provide better description in next iteration. > >> It's true it doesn't describe the topology in detail, as there are > >> multiple one-to many possible connections between sub-devices. An exact > >> topology is coded in the driver and can be changed through MC API. > >> The "samsung,camif-mux-id" and "video-bus-type" properties at "sensor" > >> nodes just specify to which physical SoC camera port an image sensor > >> is connected. > > > > So, don't you think my media-link child nodes are a good solution for > > this? > > Not quite yet ;) It would be good to see some example implementation > and how it actually works. > > >> Originally the all camera devices were supposed to land under common > >> 'camera' node. And a top level driver would be registering all platform > >> devices. With this approach it would be possible to better control PM > >> handling (which currently depends on an order of registering devices to > >> the driver core). But then we discovered that we couldn't use > >> OF_DEV_AUXDATA in such case, which was required to preserve platform > >> device names, in order for the clock API to work. So I've moved some > >> sub-devices out of 'camera' node and have added only a list of phandles > >> to them in that node. This is rather a cheap workaround.. > >> > >> I think all camera sub-devices should be placed under common node, as > >> there > >> are some properties that don't belong to any sub-node: GPIO config, > >> clocks, > >> to name a few. Of course simpler devices might not need such a composite > >> node. I think we can treat the sub-device interdependencies as an issue > >> separate from a need for a common node. > >> > >> If some devices need to reflect the topology better, we probably could > >> include in some nodes (a list of) phandles to other nodes. This could > >> ease > >> parsing the topology at the drivers, by using existing OF infrastructure. > > > > Ok, I think you have some good ideas in your RFC's, an interesting > > question now is - how to proceed. Do you think we'd be able to work out a > > combined RFC? Or would you prefer to make two versions and then see what > > others think? In either case it would be nice, I think, if you could try > > to separate what you see as common V4L DT bindings, then we could discuss > > that separately. Whereas what you think is private to your hardware, we > > can also look at for common ideas, or maybe even some of those properties > > we'll wake to make common too. > > I think we need a one combined RFC and continue discussions in one thread. Agreed. > Still, our proposals are quite different, but I believe we need something > in between. I presume we should focus more to have common bindings for > subdevs that are reused among different host/ISP devices, i.e. sensors and > encoders. For simple host interfaces we can likely come up with common > binding patterns, but more complex processing pipelines may require > a sort of individual approach. > > The suspend/resume handling is still something I don't have an idea > on how the solution for might look like.. > Instantiating all devices from a top level driver could help, but it > is only going to work when platforms are converted to the common clock > framework and have their clocks instantiated from device tree. > > This week I'm out of office, and next one or two I have some pending > assignments. So there might be some delay before I can dedicate some > reasonable amount of time to carry on with that topic. > > I unfortunately won't be attending KS this time. That's bad news :-( I still think this topic should be discussed during KS, I expect several developers to be interested. The media workshop might not be the best venue though, as we might need quite a lot of time. Until KS let's continue the discussion by e-mail. > I'll try to prepare some summary with topics that appear common. And also > to restructure my RFC series to better separate new common features and > specific H/W support. > > In the meantime we could possibly continue discussions in your RFC thread. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |