Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] media: i2c: Add driver for RDACM21 camera module

From: Jacopo Mondi
Date: Mon Nov 16 2020 - 06:33:25 EST

Next message: Lukasz Luba: "Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies"
Previous message: Miguel Ojeda: "Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough"
In reply to: Kieran Bingham: "Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] media: i2c: Add driver for RDACM21 camera module"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi Kieran,

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:20:47AM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> On 16/11/2020 10:03, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > Hi Laurent,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:08:33AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> Hi Jacopo,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 03:04:57PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:31:05PM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> >>>> Hi Jacopo,
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>>> + /* Wait for firmware boot by reading streamon status. */
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xfffd, 0x80);
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xfffe, 0x29);
> >>>>> + usleep_range(100, 150);
> >>>>> + for (timeout = 300; timeout > 0; timeout--) {
> >>>>> + ov490_read(dev, 0xd000, &val);
> >>>>> + if (val == 0x0c)
> >>>>
> >>>> What is 0x0c here? Is it something we can better describe in a #define?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The 0x0c value itself means "frame output enable" + "whole frame
> >>> output enable". I don't think it has much value to define it,
> >>> otherwise we would need to define also the register 8029d000
> >>
> >> Shouldn't we have macros for *all* register addresses and fields ?
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure it's worth it, we have a single register-value table, and
> > the way ov490 is programmed, as you can see is to specify the high
> > bytes of the 32-bits register to write in the special 'page' registers
> > 0xfffd, 0xfffe (which I've not found documented)
> >
> > ov490_write(dev, 0xfffd, 0x80);
> > ov490_write(dev, 0xfffe, 0x29);
> > ov490_read(dev, 0xd000, &val);
> >
> > This, to my understanding reads register 0x8029d000
> >
> > We would need three macros, maybe a
> > PAGE_HIGH(reg) (u8)(reg >> 24)
> > PAGE_LOW(reg) (u8)(reg >> 16)
> > REG_LOW(reg) (u16)(reg)
> >
> > To that's a lot of churn for no gain imho, the code isn't much more
> > clear
>
> To me it means we need a couple of helper functions.
>
> ov490_write_long()
> ov490_read_long().
>
> (Or other names if appropriate)
>
> Wouldn't that make the code clearer, and more maintainable? And then
> allow more correct register definitions to be created?
>
>
>
> >>> Also, the ov490 is programmed loading the content of a SPI Flash chip,
> >>> I guess it's just known that "output enabled" is required to have
> >>> stream operations properly working.
> >>>
> >>>>> + break;
> >>>>> + mdelay(1);
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + if (!timeout) {
> >>>>> + dev_err(dev->dev, "Timeout firmware boot wait\n");
> >>>>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + dev_dbg(dev->dev, "Firmware booted in %u msec\n", 300 - timeout);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Read OV10640 Id to test communications. */
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xfffd, 0x80);
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xfffe, 0x19);
>
> The other one was a write to 0x80, 0x29, why is this now to 0x19?
>
>
> >>>>> + usleep_range(100, 150);
> >
> > Not to add that I don't have register 0x80195000 in the documentation I've
>
> Aha, so writing to 0xfffd, 0xfffe, 'sets' the top page. I see.
>
> And I presume there must always be a usleep_range(100, 150) after any
> page change?
>
> Really sounds like a helper function to me, which keeps track of the
> current page, and updates the page when needed.

Ok, I'll make an helper to select the register's and handle the top
page internally.

I would leave communications with ov10640 out, as long as we don't
have other users and I better understand what's register 5000 for.

>
>
>
> > access to (the master SCCB control page is at address 0x8090xxxx
> >
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0x5000, 0x01);
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0x5001, 0x30);
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0x5002, 0x0a)
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xfffe, 0x80);
> >
> > This sequence in example, reads the 0x300a register of the slave
> > (ov10640) by programming registers
> > 0x80195000 0x1
> > 0x80195001 0x30
> > 0x80195002 0x0a
> >
> >>>>> + usleep_range(100, 150);
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xc0, 0xc1);
> >
> > Triggering a transaction writing 0xc1 to 0x808000c0 (0xc1
> > undocumented)
>
>
> Do we do many reads of the connected sensor? or is this the only one.
> If you know that's what's happening, I'd be tempted to say we should
> wrap that up in a function to make it clearer too.
>
>
>
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xfffe, 0x19);
> >>>>> + usleep_range(1000, 1500);
> >>>>> + ov490_read(dev, 0x5000, &val);
> >
> > and reading back the transaction result at address 0x80195000
> >
> > I got these parts from
> > https://github.com/CogentEmbedded/meta-rcar/blob/v2.12.0/meta-rcar-gen3/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-renesas/0040-H3-MAX9286-TI964-support-add-10635-10640-cameras.patch#L3732
> >
> > and that's why I kept Vladimir's authorship in MODULE_AUTHORS()
>
> That's fine, but I think we can do better than dragging that code in
> directly.
>
>
>
> >>>>> + if (val != OV10640_ID_LOW) {
> >>>>> + dev_err(dev->dev, "OV10640 ID mismatch: (0x%02x)\n", val);
> >>>>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + dev_dbg(dev->dev, "OV10640 ID = 0x%2x\n", val);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ov490_regs_wizard); ++i) {
> >>>>> + ret = ov490_write(dev, ov490_regs_wizard[i].reg,
> >>>>> + ov490_regs_wizard[i].val);
> >>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
> >>>>> + dev_err(dev->dev,
> >>>>> + "%s: register %u (0x%04x) write failed (%d)\n",
> >>>>> + __func__, i, ov490_regs_wizard[i].reg, ret);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return -EIO;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + usleep_range(100, 150);
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * The ISP is programmed with the content of a serial flash memory.
> >>>>> + * Read the firmware configuration to reflect it through the V4L2 APIs.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xfffd, 0x80);
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xfffe, 0x82);
> >>>>> + usleep_range(100, 150);
> >>>>> + ov490_read(dev, OV490_ISP_HSIZE_HIGH, &val);
> >>>>> + dev->fmt.width = (val & 0xf) << 8;
> >>>>> + ov490_read(dev, OV490_ISP_HSIZE_LOW, &val);
> >>>>> + dev->fmt.width |= (val & 0xff);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ov490_read(dev, OV490_ISP_VSIZE_HIGH, &val);
> >>>>> + dev->fmt.height = (val & 0xf) << 8;
> >>>>> + ov490_read(dev, OV490_ISP_VSIZE_LOW, &val);
> >>>>> + dev->fmt.height |= val & 0xff;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Set bus width to 12 bits [0:11] */
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xfffd, 0x80);
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0xfffe, 0x28);
> >>>>> + usleep_range(100, 150);
> >>>>> + ov490_write(dev, 0x6009, 0x10);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + dev_info(dev->dev, "Identified RDACM21 camera module\n");
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +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);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Serial link disabled during config as it needs a valid pixel clock. */
> >>>>> + ret = max9271_set_serial_link(dev->serializer, false);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Set GPO high to hold OV490 in reset during max9271 configuration. */
> >>>>> + ret = max9271_set_gpios(dev->serializer, MAX9271_GPO);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Configure I2C bus at 105Kbps speed and configure GMSL link. */
> >>>>> + ret = max9271_configure_i2c(dev->serializer,
> >>>>> + MAX9271_I2CSLVSH_469NS_234NS |
> >>>>> + MAX9271_I2CSLVTO_1024US |
> >>>>> + MAX9271_I2CMSTBT_105KBPS);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = max9271_configure_gmsl_link(dev->serializer);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = max9271_set_address(dev->serializer, dev->addrs[0]);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> + dev->serializer->client->addr = dev->addrs[0];
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * Release OV490 from reset and program address translation
> >>>>> + * before performing OV490 configuration.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + ret = max9271_clear_gpios(dev->serializer, MAX9271_GPO);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = max9271_set_translation(dev->serializer, dev->addrs[1],
> >>>>> + OV490_I2C_ADDRESS);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> + dev->isp->addr = dev->addrs[1];
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = ov490_initialize(dev);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * Set reverse channel high threshold to increase noise immunity.
> >>>>> + *
> >>>>> + * This should be compensated by increasing the reverse channel
> >>>>> + * amplitude on the remote deserializer side.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + ret = max9271_set_high_threshold(dev->serializer, true);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static int rdacm21_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct rdacm21_device *dev;
> >>>>> + struct fwnode_handle *ep;
> >>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + dev = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>> + if (!dev)
> >>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>>>> + dev->dev = &client->dev;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + dev->serializer = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*dev->serializer),
> >>>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>> + if (!dev->serializer)
> >>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + dev->serializer->client = client;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(client->dev.of_node, "reg",
> >>>>> + dev->addrs, 2);
> >>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
> >>>>> + dev_err(dev->dev, "Invalid DT reg property: %d\n", ret);
> >>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Create the dummy I2C client for the sensor. */
> >>>>> + dev->isp = i2c_new_dummy_device(client->adapter, OV490_I2C_ADDRESS);
> >>>>> + if (IS_ERR(dev->isp))
> >>>>> + return PTR_ERR(dev->isp);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = rdacm21_initialize(dev);
> >>>>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>>>> + goto error;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* Initialize and register the subdevice. */
> >>>>> + v4l2_i2c_subdev_init(&dev->sd, client, &rdacm21_subdev_ops);
> >>>>> + dev->sd.flags |= V4L2_SUBDEV_FL_HAS_DEVNODE;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + v4l2_ctrl_handler_init(&dev->ctrls, 1);
> >>>>> + v4l2_ctrl_new_std(&dev->ctrls, NULL, V4L2_CID_PIXEL_RATE,
> >>>>> + OV10640_PIXEL_RATE, OV10640_PIXEL_RATE, 1,
> >>>>> + OV10640_PIXEL_RATE);
> >>>>> + dev->sd.ctrl_handler = &dev->ctrls;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = dev->ctrls.error;
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + goto error_free_ctrls;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + dev->pad.flags = MEDIA_PAD_FL_SOURCE;
> >>>>> + dev->sd.entity.flags |= MEDIA_ENT_F_CAM_SENSOR;
> >>>>> + ret = media_entity_pads_init(&dev->sd.entity, 1, &dev->pad);
> >>>>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>>>> + goto error_free_ctrls;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ep = fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint(dev_fwnode(&client->dev), NULL);
> >>>>> + if (!ep) {
> >>>>> + dev_err(&client->dev,
> >>>>> + "Unable to get endpoint in node %pOF\n",
> >>>>> + client->dev.of_node);
> >>>>> + ret = -ENOENT;
> >>>>> + goto error_free_ctrls;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + dev->sd.fwnode = ep;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = v4l2_async_register_subdev(&dev->sd);
> >>>>> + if (ret)
> >>>>> + goto error_put_node;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +error_put_node:
> >>>>> + fwnode_handle_put(dev->sd.fwnode);
> >>>>> +error_free_ctrls:
> >>>>> + v4l2_ctrl_handler_free(&dev->ctrls);
> >>>>> +error:
> >>>>> + i2c_unregister_device(dev->isp);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static int rdacm21_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct rdacm21_device *dev = i2c_to_rdacm21(client);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + fwnode_handle_put(dev->sd.fwnode);
> >>>>> + v4l2_async_unregister_subdev(&dev->sd);
> >>>>> + v4l2_ctrl_handler_free(&dev->ctrls);
> >>>>> + i2c_unregister_device(dev->isp);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static const struct of_device_id rdacm21_of_ids[] = {
> >>>>> + { .compatible = "imi,rdacm21" },
> >>>>> + { }
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rdacm21_of_ids);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static struct i2c_driver rdacm21_i2c_driver = {
> >>>>> + .driver = {
> >>>>> + .name = "rdacm21",
> >>>>> + .of_match_table = rdacm21_of_ids,
> >>>>> + },
> >>>>> + .probe_new = rdacm21_probe,
> >>>>> + .remove = rdacm21_remove,
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +module_i2c_driver(rdacm21_i2c_driver);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("GMSL Camera driver for RDACM21");
> >>>>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Jacopo Mondi, Kieran Bingham, Laurent Pinchart, Niklas Söderlund, Vladimir Barinov");
> >>>>
> >>>> I think by this point you could chop MODULE_AUTHOR for this one down to
> >>>> just you ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A fairly arbitrary, and cursory
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll be aiming to test this (series) as soon as I can too.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, let me know if I should submit for proper inclusion!
> >>>
> >>>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Laurent Pinchart
>

Next message: Lukasz Luba: "Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies"
Previous message: Miguel Ojeda: "Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: fix -Wimplicit-fallthrough"
In reply to: Kieran Bingham: "Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] media: i2c: Add driver for RDACM21 camera module"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]