Re: [PATCH] [media] ov7670: make "xclk" clock optional

[jacopo mondi]

Hi Lubo,

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 04:22:15PM +0100, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 15:22 +0100, jacopo mondi wrote:
> > Hi Lubo,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:12:18PM +0100, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 11:58 +0100, jacopo mondi wrote:
> > > > Hi Lubomir,
> > > >    +Sakari in Cc
> > > >
> > > > I just noticed this, and the patch is now in v4.20, but let me comment
> > > > anyway on this.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:29:03PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> > > > > When the "xclk" clock was added, it was made mandatory. This broke the
> > > > > driver on an OLPC plaform which doesn't know such clock. Make it
> > > > > optional.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't think this is correct. The sensor needs a clock to work.
> > > >
> > > > With this patch clock_speed which is used to calculate
> > > > the framerate is defaulted to 30MHz, crippling all the calculations if
> > > > that default value doesn't match what is actually installed on the
> > > > board.
> > >
> > > How come? I kept this:
> > >
> > > +             info->clock_speed = clk_get_rate(info->clk) / 1000000;
> >
> > Yes, but only if
> > if (info->clk) { }
> >
> > if (!info->clk) the 'clock_speed' variable is defaulted to 30 at the
> > beginning of the probe routine. Am I missing something obvious here?
>
> Maybe. Or I am.
>
> I thought you care about the situation where you *have* the clk, and
> thus you shouldn't be caring about the defaults?
>

I care about the fact that with this version, the clock speed might be
default to a totally random value making the driver malfunctioning. My
specific use case doesn't matter.

> > > > If this patch breaks the OLPC, then might it be the DTS for said
> > > > device needs to be fixed instead of working around the issue here?
> > >
> > > No. Device tree is an ABI, and you can't just add mandatory properties.
> > >
> >
> > Well, as I read the ov7670 bindings documentation:
> >
> > Required Properties:
> > - compatible: should be "ovti,ov7670"
> > - clocks: reference to the xclk input clock.
> > - clock-names: should be "xclk".
> >
> > It was mandatory already since the bindings have been first created:
> > bba582894a ("[media] ov7670: document device tree bindings")
> >
> > And yes, bindings establishes an ABI we have not to break or make
> > incompatible with DTs created for an older version of the same binding,
> > but the DTs itself is free to change and we need to do so to update
> > it when required (to fix bugs, add new components, enable/disable them
> > etc).
>
> Ah, right, you're correct. No DTS ABI breakage there. I guess it would
> be fine to revert my patch if we provide the xclk on the OLPC instead.
>

Thanks I feel that would be the right thing to do.

> > > There's no DTS for OLPC XO-1 either; it's an OpenFirmware machine.
> > >
> >
> > I thought OLPC was an ARM machine, that's why I mentioned DTS. Sorry
> > about this.
>
> Well, you're sort of right here. The XO-1.75 generation is ARM, the XO-
> 1 is x86. They both use devicetree provided by the firmware. However,
> they predate FDT (or the definitions of bindings that are used here for
> tht matter) and the trees are unfortunately quite incomplete. The
> sensor is not there.

Ouch. I see...

>
> > A quick read of the wikipedia page for "OpenFirmware" gives me back
> > that it a standardized firmware interface:
> > "Open Firmware allows the system to load platform-independent drivers
> > directly from the PCI card, improving compatibility".
> >
> > I know nothing on this, and that's not the point, so I'll better stop
> > here and refrain to express how much the "loading platform-independent
> > (BINARY) drivers from the PCI card" scares me :p
> >
> > > You'd need to update all machines in the wild which is not realistic.
> >
> > Machines which have received a kernel update which includes the patch
> > that makes the clock for the sensor driver mandatory [1], will have their
> > board files updated by the same kernel update, with the proper clock
> > provider instantiated for that sensor.
> >
> > That's what I would expect from a kernel update for those devices (or
> > any device in general..)
> >
> > If this didn't happen, blame OLPC kernel maintainers :p
> >
> > [1] 0a024d634cee ("[media] ov7670: get xclk"); which went in v4.12
> >
> > > Alternatively, something else than DT could provide the clock. If this
> > > gets in, then the OLPC would work even without the xclk patch:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181105073054.24407-12-lkundrak@xxxxx/
> >
> > That's what I meant, more or less.
> >
> > If you don't have a DTS you have a board file, isn't it?
> > ( arch/x86/platform/olpc/ maybe? )
>
> The device tree on XO-1 is not constructed from a FDT, it's gotten from
> the OpenFirmware. See arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c
>

Ouch^2

> But as I said -- it's hopelessly incomplete and is not going to be of
> much help here. If you're curious, I've recently uploaded /proc/device-
> tree dumps here, since someone else asked:
>
> https://people.freedesktop.org/~lkundrak/olpc/
>
> > The patch you linked here makes the video interface (the marvel-ccic
> > one) provide the clock source for the sensor:
> >
> > +	clkdev_create(mcam->mclk, "xclk", "%d-%04x",
> > +		i2c_adapter_id(cam->i2c_adapter), ov7670_info.addr);
> > +
> >
> > While I would expect the board file to do that, as that's where all
> > pieces gets put together, and it knows which clock source has to be
> > fed to the sensor depending on your hardware design. As I don't know
> > much of x86 or openfirmare, feel free to explain me why it is not
> > possible ;)
>
> Well, maybe. I don't think so. The clock is provided by the Cafe chip
> (the bridge chip, also has i2c controller for the sensor control) that
> sits on a PCI, which is discoverable. In theory there could be more of
> them.
>
> The driver is oddly structured for historic reasons. I'm mainly
> interested in not breaking it more than it is. A good devicetree would
> help, but we don't have the luxury.
>

I see. If the cci camera interface should be providing the clock in
this setup, and it is not possible to get it from anywhere else, I
would say let's go for that, even if it's a bit of a shortcut.

> > Anyway, my whole point is that the sensor needs a clock to work. With
> > your patch if it is not provided it gets defaulted (if I'm not
> > mis-reading the code) to a value that would break frame interval
> > calculations. This is what concerns me and I would prefer the driver
> > to fail probing quite nosily to make sure all its users (dts, board
> > files etc) gets updated.
>
> I still don't get this. It defaults to 30 Hz* as it used to before the
> patch that introduced mandatory xclk, which seems perfectly reasonable.
> Which configurations break?

I don't have anything that breaks, as my platforms provides a clock
source to the driver. I'm just against changing the driver to
workaround a platform issue, opening possibilities for future
breakages and going against what the DT bindings describes as
mandatory.

>
> * you said MHz before, I suppose that was a mistake?

I see a "clk_get_rate() / 10^6", so it's defintely 30MHz (the sensor
supports input clock rates in the [10-48]MHz range. All image sensor
I know of work with frequencies in the 10^6Hz order of magnitude.

>
> > > (I just got a kbuild failure message, so I'll surely be following up
> > > with a v2.)
> > >
> > > > Also, the DT bindings should be updated too if we decide this property
> > > > can be omitted. At this point, with a follow-up patch.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > This would actually be an ABI change (one that would not break
> > retro-compatibility probably, but still...)
>
> That, I think, is an okay thing to do.
>

It would be ok, but I think dropping a mandatory property to allow
broken platform to continue stay broken is a bad idea.

I understand it might be a pain to fix for you, given the DT-loaded-from-PCI
non-sense, but looking at your mentioned olpc_dt.c file, that DTS
could be patched at run-time; but I understand having the cci
providing the clock might be for sure easier.

What's your idea, do you still feel like this should be worked around
in the driver?

Thanks
   j

>
> Thanks
> Lubo
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >    j
> >
> > > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Lubo
> > >
> > > >    j
> > > >
> > > > > Tested on a OLPC XO-1 laptop.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.11+
> > > > > Fixes: 0a024d634cee ("[media] ov7670: get xclk")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
> > > > > index 31bf577b0bd3..64d1402882c8 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
> > > > > @@ -1808,17 +1808,24 @@ static int ov7670_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > > > >  			info->pclk_hb_disable = true;
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >
> > > > > -	info->clk = devm_clk_get(&client->dev, "xclk");
> > > > > -	if (IS_ERR(info->clk))
> > > > > -		return PTR_ERR(info->clk);
> > > > > -	ret = clk_prepare_enable(info->clk);
> > > > > -	if (ret)
> > > > > -		return ret;
> > > > > +	info->clk = devm_clk_get(&client->dev, "xclk"); /* optional */
> > > > > +	if (IS_ERR(info->clk)) {
> > > > > +		ret = PTR_ERR(info->clk);
> > > > > +		if (ret == -ENOENT)
> > > > > +			info->clk = NULL;
> > > > > +		else
> > > > > +			return ret;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +	if (info->clk) {
> > > > > +		ret = clk_prepare_enable(info->clk);
> > > > > +		if (ret)
> > > > > +			return ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > -	info->clock_speed = clk_get_rate(info->clk) / 1000000;
> > > > > -	if (info->clock_speed < 10 || info->clock_speed > 48) {
> > > > > -		ret = -EINVAL;
> > > > > -		goto clk_disable;
> > > > > +		info->clock_speed = clk_get_rate(info->clk) / 1000000;
> > > > > +		if (info->clock_speed < 10 || info->clock_speed > 48) {
> > > > > +			ret = -EINVAL;
> > > > > +			goto clk_disable;
> > > > > +		}
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >
> > > > >  	ret = ov7670_init_gpio(client, info);
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.19.0
> > > > >
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature