Hi Guennadi, On 04/12/2013 08:13 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >> On 04/11/2013 11:59 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >>> >>>>> Mostly just a re-spin of v7 with minor modifications. >>>>> >>>>> Guennadi Liakhovetski (7): >>>>> media: V4L2: add temporary clock helpers >>>>> media: V4L2: support asynchronous subdevice registration >>>>> media: soc-camera: switch I2C subdevice drivers to use v4l2-clk >>>>> soc-camera: add V4L2-async support >>>>> sh_mobile_ceu_camera: add asynchronous subdevice probing support >>>>> imx074: support asynchronous probing >>>>> ARM: shmobile: convert ap4evb to asynchronously register camera >>>>> subdevices >>> >>> So far there haven't been any comments to this, and Mauro asked to push >>> all non-fixes to him by tomorrow. So, if at least the API is now ok, we >>> could push this to 3.10, at least the core patches 1 and 2. Then during >>> 3.10 we could look at porting individual drivers on top of this. >> >> This patch series has significantly improved over time but I'm not sure >> it is all ready to merge it at this moment. At least it doesn't make sense >> to me to merge it without any users. > > I wouldn't be too scared to also push my soc-camera patches from the same > patch-series. But our V4L2 OF patches don't have many users so far either, > right? And they aren't likely to get any until asynchronous probing is > supported.
Arguably there is not many users, only Samsung H/W - couple drivers and boards. I didn't push patches for the sensors that add device tree support, and are moving any H/W access to the subdev's .registered callback. Since it is not preferred way as we all agreed. But since I needed to focus on the Exynos ISP driver I chose this method as an interim solution. In fact it works well without many changes in original initialization sequence that need to be carefully verified. Anyway, my plan is to focus more on the asynchronous registration stuff to possibly have it ready for 3.11. Now when the Exynos camera subsystem is still supported after this platform becomes dt-only. >> The purpose of an introduction of this whole asynchronous probing concept >> was to add support for the device tree based systems. However there is no >> patch in this series that would be adding device tree support to some V4L2 >> driver. That's a minor issue though I think. > > It is indeed. And I did have such patches in the past, but I dropped them > on purpose for now. It was too much work to update them all for each > iteration, so, I picked up a testable minimum. Fair enough. >> A significant blocking point IMHO is that this API is bound to the circular >> dependency issue between a sub-device and the host driver. I think we should >> have at least some specific ideas on how to resolve it before pushing the >> API upstream. Or are there any already ? > > Of course there is at least one. I wouldn't propose (soc-camera) patches, > that lock modules hard into memory, once probing is complete. Alright then, maybe I should have more carefully analysed you last patch series. >> One of the ideas I had was to make a sub-device driver drop the reference >> it has to the clock provider module (the host) as soon as it gets registered >> to it. But it doesn't seem straightforward with the common clock API. > > It isn't. > >> Other option is a sysfs attribute at a host driver that would allow to >> release its sub-device(s). But it sounds a bit strange to me to require >> userspace to touch some sysfs attributes before being able to remove some >> modules. >> >> Something probably needs to be changed at the high level design to avoid >> this circular dependency. > > Here's what I do in my soc-camera patches atm: holding a reference to a > (V4L2) clock doesn't increment bridge driver's use-count (for this > discussion I describe the combined soc-camera host and soc-camera core > functionality as a bridge driver, because that's what most non soc-camera > drivers will look like). So, it can be unloaded. Once unloaded, it > unregisters its V4L2 async notifier. Inside that the v4l2-async framework > first detaches the subdevice driver, then calls the notifier's .unbind() > method, which should now unregister the clock. Then, back in > v4l2_async_notifier_unregister() the subdevice driver is re-probed, this > time with no clock available, so, it re-enters the deferred probing state. Ok, it looks better than I thought initially.. :) Still, aren't there races possible, when the host driver gets unregistered while subdev holds a reference to the clock, and before it gets registered to the host ? The likelihood of that seems very low, but I fail to find any prove it can't happen either. > BTW, a bit of self-advertisement: most soc-camera host drivers will hardly > need any modifications to support asynchronous subdevice probing. It's all > hidden in the soc-camera core. The sh-mobile CEU driver had to be modified > because it supports one more subdevice - a CSI-2 interface. OK, sounds good! I just noticed Laurent's review of this patch series. I'd like to add couple remarks too. But I pretty much agree to Laurent's comments, especially about integrating some the new data structures with struct v4l2_subdev. Regards, Sylwester -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
