[RFC/PATCH 09/13] media: s5k6aa: Add support for device tree based instantiation

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

> Hi Guennadi,
> 
> On Tuesday 31 July 2012 11:56:44 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 18 July 2012 11:18:33 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> > > > On 07/16/2012 11:42 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 25 May 2012, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> > > > >> The driver initializes all board related properties except the
> > > > >> s_power() callback to board code. The platforms that require this
> > > > >> callback are not supported by this driver yet for CONFIG_OF=y.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki<s.nawrocki at samsung.com>
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<b.zolnierkie at samsung.com>
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park<kyungmin.park at samsung.com>
> > > > >> ---
> > > > >> 
> > > > >>   .../bindings/camera/samsung-s5k6aafx.txt           |   57 +++++++++
> > > > >>   drivers/media/video/s5k6aa.c                       |  129
> > > > >>   ++++++++++++++------ 2 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 40
> > > > >>   deletions(-)
> > > > >>   create mode 100644
> > > > >>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/camera/samsung-s5k6aafx.txt>>
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> diff --git
> > > > >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/camera/samsung-s5k6aafx.txt
> > > > >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/camera/samsung-s5k6aafx.txt new
> > > > >> file
> > > > >> mode 100644
> > > > >> index 0000000..6685a9c
> > > > >> --- /dev/null
> > > > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/camera/samsung-s5k6aafx.txt
> > > > >> @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
> > > > >> +Samsung S5K6AAFX camera sensor
> > > > >> +------------------------------
> > > > >> +
> > > > >> +Required properties:
> > > > >> +
> > > > >> +- compatible : "samsung,s5k6aafx";
> > > > >> +- reg : base address of the device on I2C bus;
> > > > > 
> > > > > You said you ended up putting your sensors outside of I2C busses, is
> > > > > this
> > > > > one of changes, that are present in your git-tree but not in this
> > > > > series?
> > > > 
> > > > No, I must have been not clear enough on that. Our idea was to keep
> > > > I2C slave device nodes as an I2C controller's child nodes, according
> > > > to the current convention.
> > > > The 'sensor' nodes (the 'camera''s children) would only contain a
> > > > phandle to a respective I2C slave node.
> > > > 
> > > > This implies that we cannot access I2C bus in I2C client's device
> > > > probe() callback. An actual H/W access could begin only from within and
> > > > after invocation of v4l2_subdev .registered callback..
> > > 
> > > That's how I've envisioned the DT bindings for sensors as well, this
> > > sounds good. The real challenge will be to get hold of the subdev to
> > > register it without race conditions.
> > 
> > Hrm... That's how early pre-subdev versions of soc-camera used to work,
> > that's where all the <device>_video_probe() functions come from. But then
> > we switched to dynamic i2c device registration. Do we want to switch all
> > drivers back now?... Couldn't we "temporarily" use references from subdevs
> > to hosts until the clock API is available?
> 
> I don't think that requires a reference from subdevs to hosts in the DT. The 
> subdev will need the host to be probed before a clock can be available so you 
> won't be able to access the hardware in the probe() function in the generic 
> case. You will need to wait until the registered() subdev operation is called, 
> at which point the host can be accessed through the v4l2_device.

Sure, I understand, but that's exactly what we wanted to avoid - 
succeeding client's i2c .probe() without even touching the hardware.

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/