Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Am 07.10.2012 18:08, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab: > Ist that correct ? Mauro, could you please elaborate your plan ? What exactly do you want me to do to get this device supported by the kernel ? >>> Basically, the core em28xx module will have: >>> drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-cards.c >>> drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-i2c.c >>> drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-core.c >>> >>> Eventually, part of the functions under em28xx-core could be moved >>> to em28xx-video, as they would be used just there. For the already >>> supported em2710/em2750 webcams, we should need to change the logic >>> there to use the new gspca-em2xxx module, but this change can be >>> done later. >>> >>> The em28xx-alsa module already have: >>> drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-audio.c >>> Nothing changes on it. >>> >>> The em28xx-dvb module already have: >>> drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-dvb.c >>> Nothing changes on it. >>> >>> The new em28xx-v4l module will have: >>> drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-vbi.c >>> drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-video.c >>> >>> The em28xx-rc module already have: >>> drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-input.c >>> It makes sense to split it into two separate files, one with just the >>> remote control stuff, and the other one with the webcam snapshot buttons. >>> >>> The file with the webcam buttons support should be merged with the em28xx >>> gspca module, together with the code you wrote. >> Ok, but then there is not much left in the gspca driver. ;) > Yes. > That's what I said at the beginning of those discussions ;) > >> The two main remaining things feature blocks are >> - USB-bulk-support >> - data/frame processing >> and I think it would make sense to have them both in em28xx, too. > Ok. Well, DVB uses dvb bulk (or, at least, with some variants). So, > maybe part of the code could be moved to em28xx core, if makes sense. > >> I would say that the main reason for a gspca subdriver would be >> - the different code for i2c bus B (there is still a chance that this is >> something SpeedLink specific !) > See cx88: there's one special board that requires a special code for > a second bus. It was mapped there as a separate driver (see > drivers/media/pci/cx88/cx88-vp3054-i2c.c). > > It could make sense to put the secondary em28xx I2C bus on a separate > driver, especially if the code there are really specific for SpeedLink > (I don't think so, but tests are of course needed). > >> - the complicating buttons stuff >> - the ov2640 code (as long as no sub-module is used for that) >> which would require adding lots of new code to the em28xx-driver not >> needed by 95% of the devices. > Separate drivers for sensors make sense. In theory, that's the best solution. > I would love to split the sensors > from the gspca drivers. It is still there simply because gspca driver is > really > old, and nobody has all devices supported there. So, changing it for old > drivers will likely never happen. Newer drivers are doing the same thing > just because of the inercial movement... developers there just used to not > split > i2c... changing to a new model requires them some time and effort. The problem is, that many drivers are not written written from scratch based on a complete datasheet / knowledge of the device. If that would be the case, everything would be fine. But for drivers based on reverse-engineering and with incomplete or even missing hardware specs, the usage of sub-drivers means a time-intensive and often problematic extra conversion step. This is also why the gspca-conversion will probably never happen. Even if we could test all those devices, the amount of work would be enormous and there will likely always be any "magic register sequences" needed for one driver but not working with another one. And forcing a new driver to be converted to using subdrivers before getting accepted for kernel inclusion can easily result in several further kernel releases before users get their devices working. Of course that doesn't mean we should give up the goal ! But we should also be aware of the drawbacks. The trick will be to find the right balance between ideology and pragmatism. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to complain about this special case. But maybe it's a good example for the problems. Some people might give up earlier than me... ;) > >> The big question is, which devices can we expect to appear in the future ? > We'll never know that ;) > >> I'm pretty sure there are much more cameras (like the mentioned >> intraoral camera devices fro dentists). > Some of the webcams already supported by em28xx driver are intraoral ones. > >> As I said before, I can see the >> Windows driver probing 4 ic2 slave addresses. >> Tuner i2c clients are also mentioned in the em2580/em2585 datasheet, so >> these chips could be designed for TV stuff, too (although we haven't >> seen such a device yet). > Provided that the vast majority of registers don't change, I'm in
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Em Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:41:50 +0200
Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> Am 06.10.2012 13:56, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> > Em Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:03:25 +0200
> > Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> >
> >> Ping !
> > Sorry, too busy those days.
>
> No problem.
>
> >> Am 26.08.2012 20:53, schrieb Frank Schäfer:
> >>> Sorry for the delayed reply, I got distracted by something with higher
> >>> prority.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 22.08.2012 20:15, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Em 22-08-2012 04:53, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> > Am 21.08.2012 19:29, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> >> Hmm... before reading the rest of this email... I found some doc
> >> saying that
> >> em2765 is UVC compliant. Doesn't the uvcdriver work with this device?
> > Yeah, I stumbled over that, too. :D
> > But this device is definitely not UVC compliant. Take a look at the
> > lsusb output.
> > Maybe they are using a different firmware or something like that, but I
> > have no idea why the hell they should make a UVC compliant device
> > non-UVC-compliant...
> > Another notable difference to the devices we've seen so far is the
> > em25xx-style EEPROM. Maybe there is a connection.
> >
> > Btw, do we know any em25xx devices ???
> No, I never heard about em25xx. It seems that there are some new em275xx
> chips, but I don't have any technical data.
> >>> Maybe they changed the name and there was never a em2580/em2585.
> >>> But I assume this is an older chip design.
> >> In the mean time I was told that em2580/em2585 devices really exists.
> >> They are used for example in intraoral cameras for dentists.
> >> The em2765 seems to be a kind of relabled em25xx.
> > Ok.
> >
> >> Both chips have two i2c busses and work only with 16 bit address
> >> eeproms, which have to be connected to bus A.
> >> The sensor read/write procedure used for this webcam is very likely the
> >> standard method for accessing i2c bus B of these chips.
> >> It COULD also be vendor specific procedure, but I don't think 3 other
> >> slave addresses would be probed in that case...
> > AFAIKT, newer em28xx chips are using this concept. The em28xx-i2c code
> > require
> > changes to support two I2C buses, and to handle 16 bit eeproms. We never
> > cared
> > of doing that because we never needed, so far, to read anything from those
> > devices' eeproms.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You'll see several supported devices using the secondary bus for TV and
> >> demod. As, currently, the TV eeprom is not read on those devices,
> >> nobody
> >> cared enough to add a separate I2C bus code for it, as all access used
> >> by the driver happen just on the second bus.
> > Well, the same applies to this webcam. We do not really need to read the
> > EEPROM at the moment.
> >
> >
> A proper mapping for it to use ov2640 driver is to create two i2c
> buses, one used by eeprom access, and another one for sensor.
> >>> Sure.
> >>>
> > Interestingly, the standard I2C reads are used, too, for reading the
> > EEPROM. So maybe there is a "physical" difference.
> >
> > "Proprietary" is probably not the best name, but I don't have e
> > better
> > one at the moment (suggestions ?).
> It is just another bus: instead of using req 3/4 for read/write, it
> uses
> req 6 for both reads/writes at the i2c-like sensor bus.
>
> - uses 16bit eeprom
> - em25xx-eeprom with different layout
> >> There are other supported chips with 16bit eeproms. Currently,
> >> support for 16bit eeproms is disabled just because this weren't
> >> needed so far, but I'm sure this is a need there.
> > Yes, I've read the comment in em28xx_i2c_eeprom():
> > "...there is the risk that we could corrupt the eeprom (since a
> > 16-bit
> > read call is interpreted as a write call by 8-bit eeproms)..."
> > How can we know if a device uses an 8bit or 16bit EEPROM ? Can we
> > derive
> > that from the uses em27xx/28xx-chip ?
> I don't know any other way to check it than to read the chip ID, at
> register
> 0x0a. Those are the chip ID's that we currently know:
>
> enum em28xx_chip_id {
> CHIP_ID_EM2800 = 7,
> CHIP_ID_EM2710 = 17,
> CHIP_ID_EM2820 = 18,/* Also used by some em2710 */
> CHIP_ID_EM2840 = 20,
> CHIP_ID_EM2750 = 33,
> CHIP_ID_EM2860 = 34,
> CHIP_ID_EM2870 = 35,
> CHIP_ID_EM2883 = 36,
> CHIP_ID_EM2874 = 65,
> CHIP_ID_EM2884 = 68,
> CHIP_ID_EM28174 = 113,
> };
>
> Even if we add it as a separate driver, it is likely wise to re-use
> the
> registers description at drivers/media/usb/em28xx
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Am 07.10.2012 04:56, schrieb Devin Heitmueller: > On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab > wrote: >> AFAIKT, newer em28xx chips are using this concept. The em28xx-i2c code >> require >> changes to support two I2C buses, and to handle 16 bit eeproms. We never >> cared >> of doing that because we never needed, so far, to read anything from those >> devices' eeproms. > I actually wrote the code to read the 16-bit eeprom from the em2874, > but removed it before submitting it upstream because I was afraid > well-intentioned em28xx users trying to add support for their boards > would trash their eeprom. This is because performing a read against a > 16-bit eeprom is equivalent to a write on an 8-bit eeprom. Hence if > the user didn't know what he/she was doing, and used the 16-bit eeprom > code against an older eeprom, the eeprom would get trashed (this > actually happened to me once when I was doing the em2874 device > support originally). Yes, I've read the comment in the code... According to the (possibly outdated) em2580/em2585 datasheet I've found, these chips support 16bit eeproms ONLY. What do we know about the others ? Are there any chips which support both 8bit and 16bit eeproms ? Maybe we can make it depending on the chip_id. With regards to eeprom type probing: I've made some experiments to find out what happens when trying to access the 16bit eeprom in my device as 8bit eeprom. My hope was to get a clear result like an i2c error, no data or all bytes beeing 0x00 or 0xff. Unfortunately, there is no error and I'm getting random data (would have to cerify if it's really "random"). So probing will be difficult. > If we really want that code back in the tree, I can dig it up -- but I > won't be responsible for users killing their devices. Indeed, we should be very careful. Regards, Frank > Devin > -- 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
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Am 06.10.2012 13:56, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Em Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:03:25 +0200
> Frank Schäfer escreveu:
>
>> Ping !
> Sorry, too busy those days.
No problem.
>> Am 26.08.2012 20:53, schrieb Frank Schäfer:
>>> Sorry for the delayed reply, I got distracted by something with higher
>>> prority.
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 22.08.2012 20:15, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
Em 22-08-2012 04:53, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> Am 21.08.2012 19:29, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
>> Hmm... before reading the rest of this email... I found some doc saying
>> that
>> em2765 is UVC compliant. Doesn't the uvcdriver work with this device?
> Yeah, I stumbled over that, too. :D
> But this device is definitely not UVC compliant. Take a look at the
> lsusb output.
> Maybe they are using a different firmware or something like that, but I
> have no idea why the hell they should make a UVC compliant device
> non-UVC-compliant...
> Another notable difference to the devices we've seen so far is the
> em25xx-style EEPROM. Maybe there is a connection.
>
> Btw, do we know any em25xx devices ???
No, I never heard about em25xx. It seems that there are some new em275xx
chips, but I don't have any technical data.
>>> Maybe they changed the name and there was never a em2580/em2585.
>>> But I assume this is an older chip design.
>> In the mean time I was told that em2580/em2585 devices really exists.
>> They are used for example in intraoral cameras for dentists.
>> The em2765 seems to be a kind of relabled em25xx.
> Ok.
>
>> Both chips have two i2c busses and work only with 16 bit address
>> eeproms, which have to be connected to bus A.
>> The sensor read/write procedure used for this webcam is very likely the
>> standard method for accessing i2c bus B of these chips.
>> It COULD also be vendor specific procedure, but I don't think 3 other
>> slave addresses would be probed in that case...
> AFAIKT, newer em28xx chips are using this concept. The em28xx-i2c code require
> changes to support two I2C buses, and to handle 16 bit eeproms. We never cared
> of doing that because we never needed, so far, to read anything from those
> devices' eeproms.
>
>
>>
>> You'll see several supported devices using the secondary bus for TV and
>> demod. As, currently, the TV eeprom is not read on those devices, nobody
>> cared enough to add a separate I2C bus code for it, as all access used
>> by the driver happen just on the second bus.
> Well, the same applies to this webcam. We do not really need to read the
> EEPROM at the moment.
>
>
A proper mapping for it to use ov2640 driver is to create two i2c
buses, one used by eeprom access, and another one for sensor.
>>> Sure.
>>>
> Interestingly, the standard I2C reads are used, too, for reading the
> EEPROM. So maybe there is a "physical" difference.
>
> "Proprietary" is probably not the best name, but I don't have e better
> one at the moment (suggestions ?).
It is just another bus: instead of using req 3/4 for read/write, it
uses
req 6 for both reads/writes at the i2c-like sensor bus.
- uses 16bit eeprom
- em25xx-eeprom with different layout
>> There are other supported chips with 16bit eeproms. Currently,
>> support for 16bit eeproms is disabled just because this weren't
>> needed so far, but I'm sure this is a need there.
> Yes, I've read the comment in em28xx_i2c_eeprom():
> "...there is the risk that we could corrupt the eeprom (since a 16-bit
> read call is interpreted as a write call by 8-bit eeproms)..."
> How can we know if a device uses an 8bit or 16bit EEPROM ? Can we
> derive
> that from the uses em27xx/28xx-chip ?
I don't know any other way to check it than to read the chip ID, at
register
0x0a. Those are the chip ID's that we currently know:
enum em28xx_chip_id {
CHIP_ID_EM2800 = 7,
CHIP_ID_EM2710 = 17,
CHIP_ID_EM2820 = 18,/* Also used by some em2710 */
CHIP_ID_EM2840 = 20,
CHIP_ID_EM2750 = 33,
CHIP_ID_EM2860 = 34,
CHIP_ID_EM2870 = 35,
CHIP_ID_EM2883 = 36,
CHIP_ID_EM2874 = 65,
CHIP_ID_EM2884 = 68,
CHIP_ID_EM28174 = 113,
};
Even if we add it as a separate driver, it is likely wise to re-use the
registers description at drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-reg.h, moving
it
to drivers/include/media, as em2765 likely uses the same registers.
It also makes sense to add a chip detection at the existing driver,
for it to bail out if it detects an em2765 (and the reverse on the new
driver).
>>> em2765 h
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > AFAIKT, newer em28xx chips are using this concept. The em28xx-i2c code require > changes to support two I2C buses, and to handle 16 bit eeproms. We never cared > of doing that because we never needed, so far, to read anything from those > devices' eeproms. I actually wrote the code to read the 16-bit eeprom from the em2874, but removed it before submitting it upstream because I was afraid well-intentioned em28xx users trying to add support for their boards would trash their eeprom. This is because performing a read against a 16-bit eeprom is equivalent to a write on an 8-bit eeprom. Hence if the user didn't know what he/she was doing, and used the 16-bit eeprom code against an older eeprom, the eeprom would get trashed (this actually happened to me once when I was doing the em2874 device support originally). If we really want that code back in the tree, I can dig it up -- but I won't be responsible for users killing their devices. Devin -- Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs http://www.kernellabs.com -- 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
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Em Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:56:24 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu: > > Unfortunately, lots of changes to the ov2640 driver would be necessary > > use it. It starts with the init sequence and continues with a long > > sequence of sensor register writes at capturing start. > > My hope was, that the differences can be neglected, but unfortunately > > this is not the case. > > Given the amount of work, the fact that most of these registers are > > undocumented and the high risk to break things for other users of the > > driver, I think we should stay with the "custom" code for this webcam at > > least for the moment. > > Well, then do a new ov2640 i2c driver. We can later try to merge both, if > we can get enough spec data. Just to be clearer here: we should only fork ov2640 if we can't find a way to re-use the existing driver. Forked drivers are always a maintenance headache. Cheers, Mauro -- 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
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Em Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:03:25 +0200
Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> Ping !
Sorry, too busy those days.
>
> Am 26.08.2012 20:53, schrieb Frank Schäfer:
> > Sorry for the delayed reply, I got distracted by something with higher
> > prority.
> >
> >
> > Am 22.08.2012 20:15, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> >> Em 22-08-2012 04:53, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> >>> Am 21.08.2012 19:29, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Hmm... before reading the rest of this email... I found some doc saying
> that
> em2765 is UVC compliant. Doesn't the uvcdriver work with this device?
> >>> Yeah, I stumbled over that, too. :D
> >>> But this device is definitely not UVC compliant. Take a look at the
> >>> lsusb output.
> >>> Maybe they are using a different firmware or something like that, but I
> >>> have no idea why the hell they should make a UVC compliant device
> >>> non-UVC-compliant...
> >>> Another notable difference to the devices we've seen so far is the
> >>> em25xx-style EEPROM. Maybe there is a connection.
> >>>
> >>> Btw, do we know any em25xx devices ???
> >> No, I never heard about em25xx. It seems that there are some new em275xx
> >> chips, but I don't have any technical data.
> > Maybe they changed the name and there was never a em2580/em2585.
> > But I assume this is an older chip design.
>
> In the mean time I was told that em2580/em2585 devices really exists.
> They are used for example in intraoral cameras for dentists.
> The em2765 seems to be a kind of relabled em25xx.
Ok.
> Both chips have two i2c busses and work only with 16 bit address
> eeproms, which have to be connected to bus A.
> The sensor read/write procedure used for this webcam is very likely the
> standard method for accessing i2c bus B of these chips.
> It COULD also be vendor specific procedure, but I don't think 3 other
> slave addresses would be probed in that case...
AFAIKT, newer em28xx chips are using this concept. The em28xx-i2c code require
changes to support two I2C buses, and to handle 16 bit eeproms. We never cared
of doing that because we never needed, so far, to read anything from those
devices' eeproms.
>
>
> You'll see several supported devices using the secondary bus for TV and
> demod. As, currently, the TV eeprom is not read on those devices, nobody
> cared enough to add a separate I2C bus code for it, as all access used
> by the driver happen just on the second bus.
> >>> Well, the same applies to this webcam. We do not really need to read the
> >>> EEPROM at the moment.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> A proper mapping for it to use ov2640 driver is to create two i2c
> >> buses, one used by eeprom access, and another one for sensor.
> > Sure.
> >
> >>> Interestingly, the standard I2C reads are used, too, for reading the
> >>> EEPROM. So maybe there is a "physical" difference.
> >>>
> >>> "Proprietary" is probably not the best name, but I don't have e better
> >>> one at the moment (suggestions ?).
> >> It is just another bus: instead of using req 3/4 for read/write, it
> >> uses
> >> req 6 for both reads/writes at the i2c-like sensor bus.
> >>
> >> - uses 16bit eeprom
> >> - em25xx-eeprom with different layout
> There are other supported chips with 16bit eeproms. Currently,
> support for 16bit eeproms is disabled just because this weren't
> needed so far, but I'm sure this is a need there.
> >>> Yes, I've read the comment in em28xx_i2c_eeprom():
> >>> "...there is the risk that we could corrupt the eeprom (since a 16-bit
> >>> read call is interpreted as a write call by 8-bit eeproms)..."
> >>> How can we know if a device uses an 8bit or 16bit EEPROM ? Can we
> >>> derive
> >>> that from the uses em27xx/28xx-chip ?
> >> I don't know any other way to check it than to read the chip ID, at
> >> register
> >> 0x0a. Those are the chip ID's that we currently know:
> >>
> >> enum em28xx_chip_id {
> >>CHIP_ID_EM2800 = 7,
> >>CHIP_ID_EM2710 = 17,
> >>CHIP_ID_EM2820 = 18,/* Also used by some em2710 */
> >>CHIP_ID_EM2840 = 20,
> >>CHIP_ID_EM2750 = 33,
> >>CHIP_ID_EM2860 = 34,
> >>CHIP_ID_EM2870 = 35,
> >>CHIP_ID_EM2883 = 36,
> >>CHIP_ID_EM2874 = 65,
> >>CHIP_ID_EM2884 = 68,
> >>CHIP_ID_EM28174 = 113,
> >> };
> >>
> >> Even if we add it as a separate driver, it is likely wise to re-use the
> >> registers description at drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-reg.h, moving
> >> it
> >> to drivers/include/media, as em2765 likely uses the same registers.
> >> It also makes sense to add a chip detection at the existing driver,
> >> for it to bail out if it detects an em2765 (and the reverse on the new
> >> driver).
> > em2765 has chip-id 0x36 = 54.
> > Do you want me to send a patch ?
> Yes, please send
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Ping !
Am 26.08.2012 20:53, schrieb Frank Schäfer:
> Sorry for the delayed reply, I got distracted by something with higher
> prority.
>
>
> Am 22.08.2012 20:15, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
>> Em 22-08-2012 04:53, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
>>> Am 21.08.2012 19:29, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
Hmm... before reading the rest of this email... I found some doc saying
that
em2765 is UVC compliant. Doesn't the uvcdriver work with this device?
>>> Yeah, I stumbled over that, too. :D
>>> But this device is definitely not UVC compliant. Take a look at the
>>> lsusb output.
>>> Maybe they are using a different firmware or something like that, but I
>>> have no idea why the hell they should make a UVC compliant device
>>> non-UVC-compliant...
>>> Another notable difference to the devices we've seen so far is the
>>> em25xx-style EEPROM. Maybe there is a connection.
>>>
>>> Btw, do we know any em25xx devices ???
>> No, I never heard about em25xx. It seems that there are some new em275xx
>> chips, but I don't have any technical data.
> Maybe they changed the name and there was never a em2580/em2585.
> But I assume this is an older chip design.
In the mean time I was told that em2580/em2585 devices really exists.
They are used for example in intraoral cameras for dentists.
The em2765 seems to be a kind of relabled em25xx.
Both chips have two i2c busses and work only with 16 bit address
eeproms, which have to be connected to bus A.
The sensor read/write procedure used for this webcam is very likely the
standard method for accessing i2c bus B of these chips.
It COULD also be vendor specific procedure, but I don't think 3 other
slave addresses would be probed in that case...
You'll see several supported devices using the secondary bus for TV and
demod. As, currently, the TV eeprom is not read on those devices, nobody
cared enough to add a separate I2C bus code for it, as all access used
by the driver happen just on the second bus.
>>> Well, the same applies to this webcam. We do not really need to read the
>>> EEPROM at the moment.
>>>
>>>
>> A proper mapping for it to use ov2640 driver is to create two i2c
>> buses, one used by eeprom access, and another one for sensor.
> Sure.
>
>>> Interestingly, the standard I2C reads are used, too, for reading the
>>> EEPROM. So maybe there is a "physical" difference.
>>>
>>> "Proprietary" is probably not the best name, but I don't have e better
>>> one at the moment (suggestions ?).
>> It is just another bus: instead of using req 3/4 for read/write, it uses
>> req 6 for both reads/writes at the i2c-like sensor bus.
>>
>> - uses 16bit eeprom
>> - em25xx-eeprom with different layout
There are other supported chips with 16bit eeproms. Currently,
support for 16bit eeproms is disabled just because this weren't
needed so far, but I'm sure this is a need there.
>>> Yes, I've read the comment in em28xx_i2c_eeprom():
>>> "...there is the risk that we could corrupt the eeprom (since a 16-bit
>>> read call is interpreted as a write call by 8-bit eeproms)..."
>>> How can we know if a device uses an 8bit or 16bit EEPROM ? Can we derive
>>> that from the uses em27xx/28xx-chip ?
>> I don't know any other way to check it than to read the chip ID, at
>> register
>> 0x0a. Those are the chip ID's that we currently know:
>>
>> enum em28xx_chip_id {
>> CHIP_ID_EM2800 = 7,
>> CHIP_ID_EM2710 = 17,
>> CHIP_ID_EM2820 = 18,/* Also used by some em2710 */
>> CHIP_ID_EM2840 = 20,
>> CHIP_ID_EM2750 = 33,
>> CHIP_ID_EM2860 = 34,
>> CHIP_ID_EM2870 = 35,
>> CHIP_ID_EM2883 = 36,
>> CHIP_ID_EM2874 = 65,
>> CHIP_ID_EM2884 = 68,
>> CHIP_ID_EM28174 = 113,
>> };
>>
>> Even if we add it as a separate driver, it is likely wise to re-use the
>> registers description at drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-reg.h, moving it
>> to drivers/include/media, as em2765 likely uses the same registers.
>> It also makes sense to add a chip detection at the existing driver,
>> for it to bail out if it detects an em2765 (and the reverse on the new
>> driver).
> em2765 has chip-id 0x36 = 54.
> Do you want me to send a patch ?
Yes, please send it when you'll be ready for driver submission.
>>> Will do that.
>>>
> Do you really think the em28xx driver should always bail out when it
> detects the em2765 ?
Well, having 2 drivers for the same chipset is a very bad idea. Either
one should use it.
Another option would be to have a generic em28xx dispatcher driver
that would handle all of them, probe the board, and then starting
either one, depending if the driver is webcam or not.
>>> Sounds good.
>>>
Btw, this is on my TODO list (with low priority), as there are several
devices that have only DVB. So, it makes sense to split t
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Sorry for the delayed reply, I got distracted by something with higher prority. Am 22.08.2012 20:15, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab: > Em 22-08-2012 04:53, Frank Schäfer escreveu: >> Am 21.08.2012 19:29, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab: >>> Hmm... before reading the rest of this email... I found some doc saying that >>> em2765 is UVC compliant. Doesn't the uvcdriver work with this device? >> Yeah, I stumbled over that, too. :D >> But this device is definitely not UVC compliant. Take a look at the >> lsusb output. >> Maybe they are using a different firmware or something like that, but I >> have no idea why the hell they should make a UVC compliant device >> non-UVC-compliant... >> Another notable difference to the devices we've seen so far is the >> em25xx-style EEPROM. Maybe there is a connection. >> >> Btw, do we know any em25xx devices ??? > No, I never heard about em25xx. It seems that there are some new em275xx > chips, but I don't have any technical data. Maybe they changed the name and there was never a em2580/em2585. But I assume this is an older chip design. ... [snip] >> Anyway, I'm referring to how communication works on the USB level. >> Take a look at http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/VAD_Laplace section >> "Reverse Engineering (evaluation of USB-logs)" to see how it is working. > Ok. From your logs, it seems that em2765 uses a different bus for > sensor communication. It is not unusual to have more than one bus on > some modern devices (cx231xx has 3 I2C buses, plus one extra bus that > can be switched). Yes, but I'm wondering why. Shouldn't it be possible to connect both (sensor and eeprom) to the same bus ? Or are i2c and sccb devices incompatible ? We've seen so many em28xx devices (some of them beeing much more complex) and none of them has used two busses so far. Strange... >>> Most devices nowadays have 2 i2c buses. TV boards typically uses an >>> I2C switch on them. The rationale is to avoid receiving signal >>> interference. Some newer em28xx devices have more than one bus, although, >>> on TV chipsets, this is controlled via one register, that commands >>> bus switch: >>> >>> /* em28xx I2C Clock Register (0x06) */ >>> #define EM2874_I2C_SECONDARY_BUS_SELECT 0x04 /* em2874 has two i2c >>> busses */ >>> >>> On those devices (em2874/em2875, afaikt), hardware manufacturers put >>> the TV tuner and demod at the second bus, keeping the first bus >>> for remote controller and eeprom. >> Ok, I didn't notice that there a two i2c busses. >> I wouldn't wonder if the em2765 doesn't support this bus switch and >> that's why different USB reads/writes are used instead. >> Shouldn't be too difficult to find out... > Perhaps it accepts both ways. IMHO, a separate req for the other bus is > better than needing to change a register for every single read/write > (If my memories are not betraying me, from some USB logs, I remind I > saw that kind of thing: for every single I2C operation, it first sets the > bus, and then reads/writes - even when the previous operation were at > the same bus). > > Well, you may try to change register 6 to use the secondary bus and see > if the "standard" I2C code will work there for the sensor. A quick test failed. I enabled EM2874_I2C_SECONDARY_BUS_SELECT and tried to read from the sensor (and other slave addresses). It seems reading from the bus then works for ALL slave addresses but all data bytes are 0x00. > >>> You'll see several supported devices using the secondary bus for TV and >>> demod. As, currently, the TV eeprom is not read on those devices, nobody >>> cared enough to add a separate I2C bus code for it, as all access used >>> by the driver happen just on the second bus. >> Well, the same applies to this webcam. We do not really need to read the >> EEPROM at the moment. >> >> > A proper mapping for it to use ov2640 driver is to create two i2c > buses, one used by eeprom access, and another one for sensor. Sure. >> Interestingly, the standard I2C reads are used, too, for reading the >> EEPROM. So maybe there is a "physical" difference. >> >> "Proprietary" is probably not the best name, but I don't have e better >> one at the moment (suggestions ?). > It is just another bus: instead of using req 3/4 for read/write, it uses > req 6 for both reads/writes at the i2c-like sensor bus. > > - uses 16bit eeprom > - em25xx-eeprom with different layout >>> There are other supported chips with 16bit eeproms. Currently, >>> support for 16bit eeproms is disabled just because this weren't >>> needed so far, but I'm sure this is a need there. >> Yes, I've read the comment in em28xx_i2c_eeprom(): >> "...there is the risk that we could corrupt the eeprom (since a 16-bit >> read call is interpreted as a write call by 8-bit eeproms)..." >> How can we know if a device uses an 8bit or 16bit EEPROM ? Can we derive >>>
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Em 22-08-2012 04:53, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> Am 21.08.2012 19:29, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
>> Hmm... before reading the rest of this email... I found some doc saying that
>> em2765 is UVC compliant. Doesn't the uvcdriver work with this device?
>
> Yeah, I stumbled over that, too. :D
> But this device is definitely not UVC compliant. Take a look at the
> lsusb output.
> Maybe they are using a different firmware or something like that, but I
> have no idea why the hell they should make a UVC compliant device
> non-UVC-compliant...
> Another notable difference to the devices we've seen so far is the
> em25xx-style EEPROM. Maybe there is a connection.
>
> Btw, do we know any em25xx devices ???
No, I never heard about em25xx. It seems that there are some new em275xx
chips, but I don't have any technical data.
> I have to admit that I didn't open my device to check which chip it
> uses. This information comes from the guy who created the inital wiki
> page. But I think we can trust this information, because he provided the
> full chip label content and also photos. And according to the chip id,
> it's none of the devices we already know.
> I wouldn't hesitate to open my device to verify it, if the chance to
> damage the device wouldn't be that high...
>
>
>>
>> Em 21-08-2012 13:04, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
>>> Am 21.08.2012 14:32, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
Em 21-08-2012 08:35, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> Am 20.08.2012 21:21, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
>> Em 20-08-2012 10:02, Hans de Goede escreveu:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 08/20/2012 01:41 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
Hi,
after a break of 2 1/2 kernel releases (sorry, I was busy with another
project), I would like to bring up again the question how to add
support
for this device to the kernel.
See
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg44417.html
("Move em27xx/em28xx webcams to a gspca subdriver ?") for the previous
discussion.
Current status is, that I've reverse-engineered the Windows driver and
written a new gspca-subdriver for testing, which is feature complete
and
working stable (will send a patch shortly !).
The device uses an em2765-bridge, so my first idea was of course to
modify/extend the em28xx-driver.
But during the reverse-engineering-process, it turned out that writing
a
new gspca-subdriver was much easier than modifying the em28xx-driver.
The device has the following special characteristics:
- supports only bulk transfers (em28xx driver supports ISOC only)
>> Em28xx driver supports both isoc and bulk transfers, as bulk is
>> required by DVB.
> Hmm... are you 100% sure ? Must have been added recently then...
>
> I did a quick check of the current code, but can't find anything. Could
> you please give me a pointer to the code parts ?
> Btw, if I'm not understanding the code wrong, em28xx_usb_probe() still
> seems to return -ENODEV if no isoc-in endpoint is found, so bulk-ep-only
> devices should not work...
Perhaps I'm tricked by tm6000 code... both codes are similar.
There are a few differences with regards to isoc/bulk hanlding
there.
- uses "proprietary" read/write procedures for the sensor
>> Sure about that? It doesn't use I2C?
> According to the datasheet of the OV2640 it should be SCCB.
SCCB is a variant of I2C.
>>> I'm not sure if Omnivison would admit that. :D
>> Maybe there are trademarks envolved ;)
>
> Yes, it's a funny game. ;)
>
> Anyway, I'm referring to how communication works on the USB level.
> Take a look at http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/VAD_Laplace section
> "Reverse Engineering (evaluation of USB-logs)" to see how it is working.
Ok. From your logs, it seems that em2765 uses a different bus for
sensor communication. It is not unusual to have more than one bus on
some modern devices (cx231xx has 3 I2C buses, plus one extra bus that
can be switched).
>>> Yes, but I'm wondering why.
>>> Shouldn't it be possible to connect both (sensor and eeprom) to the same
>>> bus ? Or are i2c and sccb devices incompatible ?
>>> We've seen so many em28xx devices (some of them beeing much more
>>> complex) and none of them has used two busses so far.
>>> Strange...
>> Most devices nowadays have 2 i2c buses. TV boards typically uses an
>> I2C switch on them. The rationale is to avoid receiving signal
>> interference. Some newer em28xx devices have more than one bus, although,
>> on TV chipsets, this is controlled via one register, that commands
>> bus switch:
>>
>> /* em28xx I2C Clock Register (0x06) */
>> #define EM2874_I2C_SECONDARY_BUS_SELECT 0x04 /* em2874 has two i2c
>> busses */
>>
>> On those devices (em2874/em2875, afaikt), hardware manufacturers p
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Am 21.08.2012 19:29, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Hmm... before reading the rest of this email... I found some doc saying that
> em2765 is UVC compliant. Doesn't the uvcdriver work with this device?
Yeah, I stumbled over that, too. :D
But this device is definitely not UVC compliant. Take a look at the
lsusb output.
Maybe they are using a different firmware or something like that, but I
have no idea why the hell they should make a UVC compliant device
non-UVC-compliant...
Another notable difference to the devices we've seen so far is the
em25xx-style EEPROM. Maybe there is a connection.
Btw, do we know any em25xx devices ???
I have to admit that I didn't open my device to check which chip it
uses. This information comes from the guy who created the inital wiki
page. But I think we can trust this information, because he provided the
full chip label content and also photos. And according to the chip id,
it's none of the devices we already know.
I wouldn't hesitate to open my device to verify it, if the chance to
damage the device wouldn't be that high...
>
> Em 21-08-2012 13:04, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
>> Am 21.08.2012 14:32, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
>>> Em 21-08-2012 08:35, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
Am 20.08.2012 21:21, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Em 20-08-2012 10:02, Hans de Goede escreveu:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 08/20/2012 01:41 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> after a break of 2 1/2 kernel releases (sorry, I was busy with another
>>> project), I would like to bring up again the question how to add support
>>> for this device to the kernel.
>>> See
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg44417.html
>>> ("Move em27xx/em28xx webcams to a gspca subdriver ?") for the previous
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Current status is, that I've reverse-engineered the Windows driver and
>>> written a new gspca-subdriver for testing, which is feature complete and
>>> working stable (will send a patch shortly !).
>>>
>>> The device uses an em2765-bridge, so my first idea was of course to
>>> modify/extend the em28xx-driver.
>>> But during the reverse-engineering-process, it turned out that writing a
>>> new gspca-subdriver was much easier than modifying the em28xx-driver.
>>>
>>> The device has the following special characteristics:
>>> - supports only bulk transfers (em28xx driver supports ISOC only)
> Em28xx driver supports both isoc and bulk transfers, as bulk is
> required by DVB.
Hmm... are you 100% sure ? Must have been added recently then...
I did a quick check of the current code, but can't find anything. Could
you please give me a pointer to the code parts ?
Btw, if I'm not understanding the code wrong, em28xx_usb_probe() still
seems to return -ENODEV if no isoc-in endpoint is found, so bulk-ep-only
devices should not work...
>>> Perhaps I'm tricked by tm6000 code... both codes are similar.
>>> There are a few differences with regards to isoc/bulk hanlding
>>> there.
>>>
>>> - uses "proprietary" read/write procedures for the sensor
> Sure about that? It doesn't use I2C?
According to the datasheet of the OV2640 it should be SCCB.
>>> SCCB is a variant of I2C.
>> I'm not sure if Omnivison would admit that. :D
> Maybe there are trademarks envolved ;)
Yes, it's a funny game. ;)
Anyway, I'm referring to how communication works on the USB level.
Take a look at http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/VAD_Laplace section
"Reverse Engineering (evaluation of USB-logs)" to see how it is working.
>>> Ok. From your logs, it seems that em2765 uses a different bus for
>>> sensor communication. It is not unusual to have more than one bus on
>>> some modern devices (cx231xx has 3 I2C buses, plus one extra bus that
>>> can be switched).
>> Yes, but I'm wondering why.
>> Shouldn't it be possible to connect both (sensor and eeprom) to the same
>> bus ? Or are i2c and sccb devices incompatible ?
>> We've seen so many em28xx devices (some of them beeing much more
>> complex) and none of them has used two busses so far.
>> Strange...
> Most devices nowadays have 2 i2c buses. TV boards typically uses an
> I2C switch on them. The rationale is to avoid receiving signal
> interference. Some newer em28xx devices have more than one bus, although,
> on TV chipsets, this is controlled via one register, that commands
> bus switch:
>
> /* em28xx I2C Clock Register (0x06) */
> #define EM2874_I2C_SECONDARY_BUS_SELECT 0x04 /* em2874 has two i2c
> busses */
>
> On those devices (em2874/em2875, afaikt), hardware manufacturers put
> the TV tuner and demod at the second bus, keeping the first bus
> for remote controller and eeprom.
Ok, I didn't notice that there a two i2c busses.
I wouldn't wonder if the em2765 doesn't support this bus switch and
that's why different USB reads/writes are used instead.
Shouldn't be too difficult to find
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Hmm... before reading the rest of this email... I found some doc saying that
em2765 is UVC compliant. Doesn't the uvcdriver work with this device?
Em 21-08-2012 13:04, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> Am 21.08.2012 14:32, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
>> Em 21-08-2012 08:35, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
>>> Am 20.08.2012 21:21, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
Em 20-08-2012 10:02, Hans de Goede escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/20/2012 01:41 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> after a break of 2 1/2 kernel releases (sorry, I was busy with another
>> project), I would like to bring up again the question how to add support
>> for this device to the kernel.
>> See
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg44417.html
>> ("Move em27xx/em28xx webcams to a gspca subdriver ?") for the previous
>> discussion.
>>
>> Current status is, that I've reverse-engineered the Windows driver and
>> written a new gspca-subdriver for testing, which is feature complete and
>> working stable (will send a patch shortly !).
>>
>> The device uses an em2765-bridge, so my first idea was of course to
>> modify/extend the em28xx-driver.
>> But during the reverse-engineering-process, it turned out that writing a
>> new gspca-subdriver was much easier than modifying the em28xx-driver.
>>
>> The device has the following special characteristics:
>> - supports only bulk transfers (em28xx driver supports ISOC only)
Em28xx driver supports both isoc and bulk transfers, as bulk is
required by DVB.
>>> Hmm... are you 100% sure ? Must have been added recently then...
>>>
>>> I did a quick check of the current code, but can't find anything. Could
>>> you please give me a pointer to the code parts ?
>>> Btw, if I'm not understanding the code wrong, em28xx_usb_probe() still
>>> seems to return -ENODEV if no isoc-in endpoint is found, so bulk-ep-only
>>> devices should not work...
>> Perhaps I'm tricked by tm6000 code... both codes are similar.
>> There are a few differences with regards to isoc/bulk hanlding
>> there.
>>
>> - uses "proprietary" read/write procedures for the sensor
Sure about that? It doesn't use I2C?
>>> According to the datasheet of the OV2640 it should be SCCB.
>> SCCB is a variant of I2C.
>
> I'm not sure if Omnivison would admit that. :D
Maybe there are trademarks envolved ;)
>>> Anyway, I'm referring to how communication works on the USB level.
>>> Take a look at http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/VAD_Laplace section
>>> "Reverse Engineering (evaluation of USB-logs)" to see how it is working.
>> Ok. From your logs, it seems that em2765 uses a different bus for
>> sensor communication. It is not unusual to have more than one bus on
>> some modern devices (cx231xx has 3 I2C buses, plus one extra bus that
>> can be switched).
>
> Yes, but I'm wondering why.
> Shouldn't it be possible to connect both (sensor and eeprom) to the same
> bus ? Or are i2c and sccb devices incompatible ?
> We've seen so many em28xx devices (some of them beeing much more
> complex) and none of them has used two busses so far.
> Strange...
Most devices nowadays have 2 i2c buses. TV boards typically uses an
I2C switch on them. The rationale is to avoid receiving signal
interference. Some newer em28xx devices have more than one bus, although,
on TV chipsets, this is controlled via one register, that commands
bus switch:
/* em28xx I2C Clock Register (0x06) */
#define EM2874_I2C_SECONDARY_BUS_SELECT 0x04 /* em2874 has two i2c
busses */
On those devices (em2874/em2875, afaikt), hardware manufacturers put
the TV tuner and demod at the second bus, keeping the first bus
for remote controller and eeprom.
You'll see several supported devices using the secondary bus for TV and
demod. As, currently, the TV eeprom is not read on those devices, nobody
cared enough to add a separate I2C bus code for it, as all access used
by the driver happen just on the second bus.
>> A proper mapping for it to use ov2640 driver is to create two i2c
>> buses, one used by eeprom access, and another one for sensor.
>
> Sure.
>
>>
>>> Interestingly, the standard I2C reads are used, too, for reading the
>>> EEPROM. So maybe there is a "physical" difference.
>>>
>>> "Proprietary" is probably not the best name, but I don't have e better
>>> one at the moment (suggestions ?).
>> It is just another bus: instead of using req 3/4 for read/write, it uses
>> req 6 for both reads/writes at the i2c-like sensor bus.
>>
>> - uses 16bit eeprom
>> - em25xx-eeprom with different layout
There are other supported chips with 16bit eeproms. Currently,
support for 16bit eeproms is disabled just because this weren't
needed so far, but I'm sure this is a need there.
>>> Yes, I've read the comment in em28xx_i2c_eeprom():
>>> "...there is the risk that we could corrupt the eeprom (since a 16-bit
>>> read call is interpreted as a write call by 8
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Am 21.08.2012 14:32, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Em 21-08-2012 08:35, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
>> Am 20.08.2012 21:21, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
>>> Em 20-08-2012 10:02, Hans de Goede escreveu:
Hi,
On 08/20/2012 01:41 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after a break of 2 1/2 kernel releases (sorry, I was busy with another
> project), I would like to bring up again the question how to add support
> for this device to the kernel.
> See
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg44417.html
> ("Move em27xx/em28xx webcams to a gspca subdriver ?") for the previous
> discussion.
>
> Current status is, that I've reverse-engineered the Windows driver and
> written a new gspca-subdriver for testing, which is feature complete and
> working stable (will send a patch shortly !).
>
> The device uses an em2765-bridge, so my first idea was of course to
> modify/extend the em28xx-driver.
> But during the reverse-engineering-process, it turned out that writing a
> new gspca-subdriver was much easier than modifying the em28xx-driver.
>
> The device has the following special characteristics:
> - supports only bulk transfers (em28xx driver supports ISOC only)
>>> Em28xx driver supports both isoc and bulk transfers, as bulk is
>>> required by DVB.
>> Hmm... are you 100% sure ? Must have been added recently then...
>>
>> I did a quick check of the current code, but can't find anything. Could
>> you please give me a pointer to the code parts ?
>> Btw, if I'm not understanding the code wrong, em28xx_usb_probe() still
>> seems to return -ENODEV if no isoc-in endpoint is found, so bulk-ep-only
>> devices should not work...
> Perhaps I'm tricked by tm6000 code... both codes are similar.
> There are a few differences with regards to isoc/bulk hanlding
> there.
>
> - uses "proprietary" read/write procedures for the sensor
>>> Sure about that? It doesn't use I2C?
>> According to the datasheet of the OV2640 it should be SCCB.
> SCCB is a variant of I2C.
I'm not sure if Omnivison would admit that. :D
>
>> Anyway, I'm referring to how communication works on the USB level.
>> Take a look at http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/VAD_Laplace section
>> "Reverse Engineering (evaluation of USB-logs)" to see how it is working.
> Ok. From your logs, it seems that em2765 uses a different bus for
> sensor communication. It is not unusual to have more than one bus on
> some modern devices (cx231xx has 3 I2C buses, plus one extra bus that
> can be switched).
Yes, but I'm wondering why.
Shouldn't it be possible to connect both (sensor and eeprom) to the same
bus ? Or are i2c and sccb devices incompatible ?
We've seen so many em28xx devices (some of them beeing much more
complex) and none of them has used two busses so far.
Strange...
> A proper mapping for it to use ov2640 driver is to create two i2c
> buses, one used by eeprom access, and another one for sensor.
Sure.
>
>> Interestingly, the standard I2C reads are used, too, for reading the
>> EEPROM. So maybe there is a "physical" difference.
>>
>> "Proprietary" is probably not the best name, but I don't have e better
>> one at the moment (suggestions ?).
> It is just another bus: instead of using req 3/4 for read/write, it uses
> req 6 for both reads/writes at the i2c-like sensor bus.
>
> - uses 16bit eeprom
> - em25xx-eeprom with different layout
>>> There are other supported chips with 16bit eeproms. Currently,
>>> support for 16bit eeproms is disabled just because this weren't
>>> needed so far, but I'm sure this is a need there.
>> Yes, I've read the comment in em28xx_i2c_eeprom():
>> "...there is the risk that we could corrupt the eeprom (since a 16-bit
>> read call is interpreted as a write call by 8-bit eeproms)..."
>> How can we know if a device uses an 8bit or 16bit EEPROM ? Can we derive
>> that from the uses em27xx/28xx-chip ?
> I don't know any other way to check it than to read the chip ID, at register
> 0x0a. Those are the chip ID's that we currently know:
>
> enum em28xx_chip_id {
> CHIP_ID_EM2800 = 7,
> CHIP_ID_EM2710 = 17,
> CHIP_ID_EM2820 = 18,/* Also used by some em2710 */
> CHIP_ID_EM2840 = 20,
> CHIP_ID_EM2750 = 33,
> CHIP_ID_EM2860 = 34,
> CHIP_ID_EM2870 = 35,
> CHIP_ID_EM2883 = 36,
> CHIP_ID_EM2874 = 65,
> CHIP_ID_EM2884 = 68,
> CHIP_ID_EM28174 = 113,
> };
>
> Even if we add it as a separate driver, it is likely wise to re-use the
> registers description at drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-reg.h, moving it
> to drivers/include/media, as em2765 likely uses the same registers.
> It also makes sense to add a chip detection at the existing driver,
> for it to bail out if it detects an em2765 (and the reverse on the new
> driver).
em2765 has chip-id 0x36 = 54.
Do you want me to send a patch ?
Do you really think the em28xx driver should always bail out when it
detects the
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Em 21-08-2012 08:35, Frank Schäfer escreveu:
> Am 20.08.2012 21:21, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
>> Em 20-08-2012 10:02, Hans de Goede escreveu:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 08/20/2012 01:41 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
Hi,
after a break of 2 1/2 kernel releases (sorry, I was busy with another
project), I would like to bring up again the question how to add support
for this device to the kernel.
See
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg44417.html
("Move em27xx/em28xx webcams to a gspca subdriver ?") for the previous
discussion.
Current status is, that I've reverse-engineered the Windows driver and
written a new gspca-subdriver for testing, which is feature complete and
working stable (will send a patch shortly !).
The device uses an em2765-bridge, so my first idea was of course to
modify/extend the em28xx-driver.
But during the reverse-engineering-process, it turned out that writing a
new gspca-subdriver was much easier than modifying the em28xx-driver.
The device has the following special characteristics:
- supports only bulk transfers (em28xx driver supports ISOC only)
>> Em28xx driver supports both isoc and bulk transfers, as bulk is
>> required by DVB.
>
> Hmm... are you 100% sure ? Must have been added recently then...
>
> I did a quick check of the current code, but can't find anything. Could
> you please give me a pointer to the code parts ?
> Btw, if I'm not understanding the code wrong, em28xx_usb_probe() still
> seems to return -ENODEV if no isoc-in endpoint is found, so bulk-ep-only
> devices should not work...
Perhaps I'm tricked by tm6000 code... both codes are similar.
There are a few differences with regards to isoc/bulk hanlding
there.
- uses "proprietary" read/write procedures for the sensor
>> Sure about that? It doesn't use I2C?
>
> According to the datasheet of the OV2640 it should be SCCB.
SCCB is a variant of I2C.
> Anyway, I'm referring to how communication works on the USB level.
> Take a look at http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/VAD_Laplace section
> "Reverse Engineering (evaluation of USB-logs)" to see how it is working.
Ok. From your logs, it seems that em2765 uses a different bus for
sensor communication. It is not unusual to have more than one bus on
some modern devices (cx231xx has 3 I2C buses, plus one extra bus that
can be switched).
A proper mapping for it to use ov2640 driver is to create two i2c
buses, one used by eeprom access, and another one for sensor.
> Interestingly, the standard I2C reads are used, too, for reading the
> EEPROM. So maybe there is a "physical" difference.
>
> "Proprietary" is probably not the best name, but I don't have e better
> one at the moment (suggestions ?).
It is just another bus: instead of using req 3/4 for read/write, it uses
req 6 for both reads/writes at the i2c-like sensor bus.
- uses 16bit eeprom
- em25xx-eeprom with different layout
>> There are other supported chips with 16bit eeproms. Currently,
>> support for 16bit eeproms is disabled just because this weren't
>> needed so far, but I'm sure this is a need there.
>
> Yes, I've read the comment in em28xx_i2c_eeprom():
> "...there is the risk that we could corrupt the eeprom (since a 16-bit
> read call is interpreted as a write call by 8-bit eeproms)..."
> How can we know if a device uses an 8bit or 16bit EEPROM ? Can we derive
> that from the uses em27xx/28xx-chip ?
I don't know any other way to check it than to read the chip ID, at register
0x0a. Those are the chip ID's that we currently know:
enum em28xx_chip_id {
CHIP_ID_EM2800 = 7,
CHIP_ID_EM2710 = 17,
CHIP_ID_EM2820 = 18,/* Also used by some em2710 */
CHIP_ID_EM2840 = 20,
CHIP_ID_EM2750 = 33,
CHIP_ID_EM2860 = 34,
CHIP_ID_EM2870 = 35,
CHIP_ID_EM2883 = 36,
CHIP_ID_EM2874 = 65,
CHIP_ID_EM2884 = 68,
CHIP_ID_EM28174 = 113,
};
Even if we add it as a separate driver, it is likely wise to re-use the
registers description at drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-reg.h, moving it
to drivers/include/media, as em2765 likely uses the same registers.
It also makes sense to add a chip detection at the existing driver,
for it to bail out if it detects an em2765 (and the reverse on the new
driver).
> Anyway, this problem is common to both solutions (gspca or em28xx-driver).
As eeprom reading is I2C, it could make some sense to use a generic driver
for reading its contents, removing the code from em28xx-i2c logic, and
re-using it on both drivers (assuming that we fork it).
- sensor OV2640
>> There is a driver for it at:
>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov2640.c
>>
>> The better is to use it (even if this got mapped via gspca).
>
> Yes, I know. This is already on my ToDo list.
>
- different frame processing
- 3 buttons (snapshot, mute, light) which need special treatment
(GPIO-polling, s
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Am 20.08.2012 21:21, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Em 20-08-2012 10:02, Hans de Goede escreveu:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 08/20/2012 01:41 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> after a break of 2 1/2 kernel releases (sorry, I was busy with another
>>> project), I would like to bring up again the question how to add support
>>> for this device to the kernel.
>>> See
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg44417.html
>>> ("Move em27xx/em28xx webcams to a gspca subdriver ?") for the previous
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Current status is, that I've reverse-engineered the Windows driver and
>>> written a new gspca-subdriver for testing, which is feature complete and
>>> working stable (will send a patch shortly !).
>>>
>>> The device uses an em2765-bridge, so my first idea was of course to
>>> modify/extend the em28xx-driver.
>>> But during the reverse-engineering-process, it turned out that writing a
>>> new gspca-subdriver was much easier than modifying the em28xx-driver.
>>>
>>> The device has the following special characteristics:
>>> - supports only bulk transfers (em28xx driver supports ISOC only)
> Em28xx driver supports both isoc and bulk transfers, as bulk is
> required by DVB.
Hmm... are you 100% sure ? Must have been added recently then...
I did a quick check of the current code, but can't find anything. Could
you please give me a pointer to the code parts ?
Btw, if I'm not understanding the code wrong, em28xx_usb_probe() still
seems to return -ENODEV if no isoc-in endpoint is found, so bulk-ep-only
devices should not work...
>
>>> - uses "proprietary" read/write procedures for the sensor
> Sure about that? It doesn't use I2C?
According to the datasheet of the OV2640 it should be SCCB.
Anyway, I'm referring to how communication works on the USB level.
Take a look at http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/VAD_Laplace section
"Reverse Engineering (evaluation of USB-logs)" to see how it is working.
Interestingly, the standard I2C reads are used, too, for reading the
EEPROM. So maybe there is a "physical" difference.
"Proprietary" is probably not the best name, but I don't have e better
one at the moment (suggestions ?).
>>> - uses 16bit eeprom
>>> - em25xx-eeprom with different layout
> There are other supported chips with 16bit eeproms. Currently,
> support for 16bit eeproms is disabled just because this weren't
> needed so far, but I'm sure this is a need there.
Yes, I've read the comment in em28xx_i2c_eeprom():
"...there is the risk that we could corrupt the eeprom (since a 16-bit
read call is interpreted as a write call by 8-bit eeproms)..."
How can we know if a device uses an 8bit or 16bit EEPROM ? Can we derive
that from the uses em27xx/28xx-chip ?
Anyway, this problem is common to both solutions (gspca or em28xx-driver).
>>> - sensor OV2640
> There is a driver for it at:
> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov2640.c
>
> The better is to use it (even if this got mapped via gspca).
Yes, I know. This is already on my ToDo list.
>>> - different frame processing
>>> - 3 buttons (snapshot, mute, light) which need special treatment
>>> (GPIO-polling, status-reseting, ...)
> Need to see the code to better understand that.
Take a look at the patch.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg52084.html
I've sent it to the list 3 minutes after I started this thread and also
CC'ed you.
>>> Another important point to mention: you can see from the USB-logs
>>> (sensor probing) that there must be at least 3 other webcam devices.
> What do you mean?
The Windows driver probes 3 other sensor addresses (using the same
"proprietary" reads). I've included them in my patch.
The INF-file does not contain any other USB IDs, but I think it is
unlikely that they are used by this device.
SpeedLink spent different USB IDs even for identical devices with
different body colors, so I think they would have done they same for
variants with different sensors.
It is more likely that the Windows driver is a kind of universal em2765
driver.
>>> Some pros and cons for both solutions:
>>>
>>> em28xx:
>>> + one driver for all 25xx/26xx/27xx/28xx devices
>>> + no duplicate code (bridge register defines, bridge read/write fcns)
>>> + other devices COULD benefit from the new functions/code
>>> - big task/lots of work
>>> - code gets bloated with stuff, which is only needed by a few special
>>> devices
> It all depends on what's needed ;)
>
>>> gspca:
>>> + driver already exists (see patch)
> Which patch?
See above.
>>> + default driver for webcams
>>> + much easier to understand and extend
>>> + same or even less amount of new code lines
>>> + keeps em28xx-code "simple"
>>> - code duplication
>>> - support for em28xx-webcams spread over to 2 different drivers
> The spread of em27xx support on 2 different drivers can lead into
> problems for the users to know what driver implements support for
> their device.
Ok, but that's what dmesg is for, isn't it ?
And people willing to add support for a new device
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Em 20-08-2012 17:46, Hans de Goede escreveu: > Hi, > > On 08/20/2012 09:21 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> Em 20-08-2012 10:02, Hans de Goede escreveu: > > > >>> Note that luckily these devices do use a unique USB id and not one of the >>> generic em28xx ids so from that pov having a specialized driver for them >>> is not an issue. >> >> Hans, >> >> Not sure if all em2765 cameras will have unique USB id's: at em28xx, >> the known em2710/em2750 cameras that don't have unique ID's; detecting >> between them requires to probe for the type of sensor. > > Right, like the one I gave to Douglas and you or Douglas (don't remember) > added > support for. Yes. There are also some other similar cameras, including some special ones (orthodontist usage, afaikt), that worked with the same driver, but with a different sensor. > But that one was a "regular" em28xx using camera, and this one > appears to be a bit funky in places... > > I'll let Frank answer your other remarks. Yep. Let's see his findings before taking any decision on that. Regards, Mauro -- 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
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Hi, On 08/20/2012 09:21 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: Em 20-08-2012 10:02, Hans de Goede escreveu: Note that luckily these devices do use a unique USB id and not one of the generic em28xx ids so from that pov having a specialized driver for them is not an issue. Hans, Not sure if all em2765 cameras will have unique USB id's: at em28xx, the known em2710/em2750 cameras that don't have unique ID's; detecting between them requires to probe for the type of sensor. Right, like the one I gave to Douglas and you or Douglas (don't remember) added support for. But that one was a "regular" em28xx using camera, and this one appears to be a bit funky in places... I'll let Frank answer your other remarks. Regards, Hans -- 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
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Em 20-08-2012 10:02, Hans de Goede escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/20/2012 01:41 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> after a break of 2 1/2 kernel releases (sorry, I was busy with another
>> project), I would like to bring up again the question how to add support
>> for this device to the kernel.
>> See
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg44417.html
>> ("Move em27xx/em28xx webcams to a gspca subdriver ?") for the previous
>> discussion.
>>
>> Current status is, that I've reverse-engineered the Windows driver and
>> written a new gspca-subdriver for testing, which is feature complete and
>> working stable (will send a patch shortly !).
>>
>> The device uses an em2765-bridge, so my first idea was of course to
>> modify/extend the em28xx-driver.
>> But during the reverse-engineering-process, it turned out that writing a
>> new gspca-subdriver was much easier than modifying the em28xx-driver.
>>
>> The device has the following special characteristics:
>> - supports only bulk transfers (em28xx driver supports ISOC only)
Em28xx driver supports both isoc and bulk transfers, as bulk is
required by DVB.
>> - uses "proprietary" read/write procedures for the sensor
Sure about that? It doesn't use I2C?
>> - uses 16bit eeprom
>> - em25xx-eeprom with different layout
There are other supported chips with 16bit eeproms. Currently,
support for 16bit eeproms is disabled just because this weren't
needed so far, but I'm sure this is a need there.
>> - sensor OV2640
There is a driver for it at:
drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov2640.c
The better is to use it (even if this got mapped via gspca).
>> - different frame processing
>> - 3 buttons (snapshot, mute, light) which need special treatment
>> (GPIO-polling, status-reseting, ...)
Need to see the code to better understand that.
>>
>> Another important point to mention: you can see from the USB-logs
>> (sensor probing) that there must be at least 3 other webcam devices.
What do you mean?
>>
>> Some pros and cons for both solutions:
>>
>> em28xx:
>> + one driver for all 25xx/26xx/27xx/28xx devices
>> + no duplicate code (bridge register defines, bridge read/write fcns)
>> + other devices COULD benefit from the new functions/code
>> - big task/lots of work
>> - code gets bloated with stuff, which is only needed by a few special
>> devices
It all depends on what's needed ;)
>>
>> gspca:
>> + driver already exists (see patch)
Which patch?
>> + default driver for webcams
>> + much easier to understand and extend
>> + same or even less amount of new code lines
>> + keeps em28xx-code "simple"
>> - code duplication
>> - support for em28xx-webcams spread over to 2 different drivers
The spread of em27xx support on 2 different drivers can lead into
problems for the users to know what driver implements support for
their device.
So, if we're going to do that, then the better is to move support
for all em27xx devices out of em28xx driver, but I think that this
will end by creating duplicated stuff.
Btw, how is audio with your em2765 device? Is it provided via
snd-usb-audio, or does it require some code like the one inside
em28xx?
>> I have no strong opinion whether support for this device should finally
>> be added to em28xx or gspca and
>> I'm willing to continue working on both solutions as much as my time
>> permits and as long as I'm having fun (I'm doing this as a hobby !).
>> Anyway, the em28xx driver is very complex and I really think it would
>> take several further kernel releases to get the job done...
>> I would also be willing to spend some time for moving the em28xx-webcam
>> code to a gspca subdriver, but I don't have any of these devices for
>> testing.
>>
>> What do you think ?
>
> I think given the special way this camera uses the bridge (not using
> standard i2c interface, weird button layout, etc.). That it is likely server
> better by a specialized driver. As the (new) gspca maintainer I'm fine with
> taking it as a gspca sub-driver, but given the code duplication issue,
> that is a call Mauro should make.
>
> Note that luckily these devices do use a unique USB id and not one of the
> generic em28xx ids so from that pov having a specialized driver for them
> is not an issue.
Hans,
Not sure if all em2765 cameras will have unique USB id's: at em28xx,
the known em2710/em2750 cameras that don't have unique ID's; detecting
between them requires to probe for the type of sensor.
Regards,
Mauro
--
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
Re: How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Hi,
On 08/20/2012 01:41 PM, Frank Schäfer wrote:
Hi,
after a break of 2 1/2 kernel releases (sorry, I was busy with another
project), I would like to bring up again the question how to add support
for this device to the kernel.
See
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg44417.html
("Move em27xx/em28xx webcams to a gspca subdriver ?") for the previous
discussion.
Current status is, that I've reverse-engineered the Windows driver and
written a new gspca-subdriver for testing, which is feature complete and
working stable (will send a patch shortly !).
The device uses an em2765-bridge, so my first idea was of course to
modify/extend the em28xx-driver.
But during the reverse-engineering-process, it turned out that writing a
new gspca-subdriver was much easier than modifying the em28xx-driver.
The device has the following special characteristics:
- supports only bulk transfers (em28xx driver supports ISOC only)
- uses "proprietary" read/write procedures for the sensor
- uses 16bit eeprom
- em25xx-eeprom with different layout
- sensor OV2640
- different frame processing
- 3 buttons (snapshot, mute, light) which need special treatment
(GPIO-polling, status-reseting, ...)
Another important point to mention: you can see from the USB-logs
(sensor probing) that there must be at least 3 other webcam devices.
Some pros and cons for both solutions:
em28xx:
+ one driver for all 25xx/26xx/27xx/28xx devices
+ no duplicate code (bridge register defines, bridge read/write fcns)
+ other devices COULD benefit from the new functions/code
- big task/lots of work
- code gets bloated with stuff, which is only needed by a few special
devices
gspca:
+ driver already exists (see patch)
+ default driver for webcams
+ much easier to understand and extend
+ same or even less amount of new code lines
+ keeps em28xx-code "simple"
- code duplication
- support for em28xx-webcams spread over to 2 different drivers
I have no strong opinion whether support for this device should finally
be added to em28xx or gspca and
I'm willing to continue working on both solutions as much as my time
permits and as long as I'm having fun (I'm doing this as a hobby !).
Anyway, the em28xx driver is very complex and I really think it would
take several further kernel releases to get the job done...
I would also be willing to spend some time for moving the em28xx-webcam
code to a gspca subdriver, but I don't have any of these devices for
testing.
What do you think ?
I think given the special way this camera uses the bridge (not using
standard i2c interface, weird button layout, etc.). That it is likely server
better by a specialized driver. As the (new) gspca maintainer I'm fine with
taking it as a gspca sub-driver, but given the code duplication issue,
that is a call Mauro should make.
Note that luckily these devices do use a unique USB id and not one of the
generic em28xx ids so from that pov having a specialized driver for them
is not an issue.
Regards,
Hans
p.s.
Frank have you seen this mail, it seems another Linux user has the same
camera, perhaps he can run some tests for you:
http://osdir.com/ml/linux-media/2009-05/msg00186.html
--
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
How to add support for the em2765 webcam Speedlink VAD Laplace to the kernel ?
Hi,
after a break of 2 1/2 kernel releases (sorry, I was busy with another
project), I would like to bring up again the question how to add support
for this device to the kernel.
See
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg44417.html
("Move em27xx/em28xx webcams to a gspca subdriver ?") for the previous
discussion.
Current status is, that I've reverse-engineered the Windows driver and
written a new gspca-subdriver for testing, which is feature complete and
working stable (will send a patch shortly !).
The device uses an em2765-bridge, so my first idea was of course to
modify/extend the em28xx-driver.
But during the reverse-engineering-process, it turned out that writing a
new gspca-subdriver was much easier than modifying the em28xx-driver.
The device has the following special characteristics:
- supports only bulk transfers (em28xx driver supports ISOC only)
- uses "proprietary" read/write procedures for the sensor
- uses 16bit eeprom
- em25xx-eeprom with different layout
- sensor OV2640
- different frame processing
- 3 buttons (snapshot, mute, light) which need special treatment
(GPIO-polling, status-reseting, ...)
Another important point to mention: you can see from the USB-logs
(sensor probing) that there must be at least 3 other webcam devices.
Some pros and cons for both solutions:
em28xx:
+ one driver for all 25xx/26xx/27xx/28xx devices
+ no duplicate code (bridge register defines, bridge read/write fcns)
+ other devices COULD benefit from the new functions/code
- big task/lots of work
- code gets bloated with stuff, which is only needed by a few special
devices
gspca:
+ driver already exists (see patch)
+ default driver for webcams
+ much easier to understand and extend
+ same or even less amount of new code lines
+ keeps em28xx-code "simple"
- code duplication
- support for em28xx-webcams spread over to 2 different drivers
I have no strong opinion whether support for this device should finally
be added to em28xx or gspca and
I'm willing to continue working on both solutions as much as my time
permits and as long as I'm having fun (I'm doing this as a hobby !).
Anyway, the em28xx driver is very complex and I really think it would
take several further kernel releases to get the job done...
I would also be willing to spend some time for moving the em28xx-webcam
code to a gspca subdriver, but I don't have any of these devices for
testing.
What do you think ?
Regards,
Frank Schäfer
--
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
