Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] ipu3-cio2: Add cio2-bridge to ipu3-cio2 driver

[Sakari Ailus]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:52:52AM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
> 
> On 21/12/2020 10:21, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Hi Daniel, Andy,
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 11:48:51PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
> >> On 19/12/2020 18:52, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 2:25 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 18/12/2020 21:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:43:37PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>>>> +    sensor->ep_properties[0] = PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32(sensor->prop_names.bus_type, 4);
> >>>>> Does 4 has any meaning that can be described by #define ?
> >>>> It's V4L2_FWNODE_BUS_TYPE_CSI2_DPHY:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c#L36
> >>>>
> >>>> That enum's not in an accessible header, but I can define it in this
> >>>> module's header
> >>> Maybe you can do a preparatory patch to make it visible to v4l2
> >>> drivers? (Like moving to one of v4l2 headers)
> >> Sure ok, guess media/v4l2-fwnode.h makes the most sense.
> > Yes, please.
> Done for the next version
> >
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>>>> +                    if (bridge->n_sensors >= CIO2_NUM_PORTS) {
> >>>>>> +                            dev_warn(&cio2->dev, "Exceeded available CIO2 ports\n");
> >>>>>> +                            /* overflow i so outer loop ceases */
> >>>>>> +                            i = ARRAY_SIZE(cio2_supported_sensors);
> >>>>>> +                            break;
> >>>>> Why not to create a new label below and assign ret here with probably comment
> >>>>> why it's not an error?
> >>>> Sure, I can do that, but since it wouldn't need any cleanup I could also
> >>>> just return 0 here as Laurent suggest (but with a comment explaining why
> >>>> that's ok as you say) - do you have a preference?
> >>> While it's a good suggestion it will bring a bit of inconsistency into
> >>> approach. Everywhere else in the function you are using the goto
> >>> approach.
> >>> So yes, I have a preference.
> >> No problem
> > Laurent also commented on the return code.
> >
> > I might just handle this as an error. The earlier ports are fine, but
> > there's also a problem with the data here. It'd be easier to spot that this
> > way, and we can change this in the future if need be.
> 
> 
> You mean just raise an error with dev_err()? Or fail the probe and
> unwind the 4 sensors that were already connected successfully? I'm fine

Both.

> with that if so - we have no in scope devices where that will be a
> problem at the moment.

I guess there will be quite a few additional things to address before
getting anything with four sensors working.

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus