devicetree: Add video bus switch
Commit Message
Hi!
> My apologies for the delays in reviewing. Feel free to ping me in the future
> if this happens. :-)
No problem :-). If you could review the C-code, too... that would be
nice. It should be in your inbox somewhere (and I attached it below,
without the dts part).
> > +Required properties
> > +===================
> > +
> > +compatible : must contain "video-bus-switch"
>
> How generic is this? Should we have e.g. nokia,video-bus-switch? And if so,
> change the file name accordingly.
Generic for "single GPIO controls the switch", AFAICT. But that should
be common enough...
> > +reg : The interface:
> > + 0 - port for image signal processor
> > + 1 - port for first camera sensor
> > + 2 - port for second camera sensor
>
> I'd say this must be pretty much specific to the one in N900. You could have
> more ports. Or you could say that ports beyond 0 are camera sensors. I guess
> this is good enough for now though, it can be changed later on with the
> source if a need arises.
Well, I'd say that selecting between two sensors is going to be the
common case. If someone needs more than two, it will no longer be
simple GPIO, so we'll have some fixing to do.
> Btw. was it still considered a problem that the endpoint properties for the
> sensors can be different? With the g_routing() pad op which is to be added,
> the ISP driver (should actually go to a framework somewhere) could parse the
> graph and find the proper endpoint there.
I don't know about g_routing. I added g_endpoint_config method that
passes the configuration, and that seems to work for me.
I don't see g_routing in next-20170201 . Is there place to look?
Best regards,
Pavel
---
N900 contains front and back camera, with a switch between the
two. This adds support for the switch component, and it is now
possible to select between front and back cameras during runtime.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Comments
Hi Pavel,
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:06:10PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > My apologies for the delays in reviewing. Feel free to ping me in the future
> > if this happens. :-)
>
> No problem :-). If you could review the C-code, too... that would be
> nice. It should be in your inbox somewhere (and I attached it below,
> without the dts part).
>
>
> > > +Required properties
> > > +===================
> > > +
> > > +compatible : must contain "video-bus-switch"
> >
> > How generic is this? Should we have e.g. nokia,video-bus-switch? And if so,
> > change the file name accordingly.
>
> Generic for "single GPIO controls the switch", AFAICT. But that should
> be common enough...
Um, yes. Then... how about: video-bus-switch-gpio? No Nokia prefix.
>
> > > +reg : The interface:
> > > + 0 - port for image signal processor
> > > + 1 - port for first camera sensor
> > > + 2 - port for second camera sensor
> >
> > I'd say this must be pretty much specific to the one in N900. You could have
> > more ports. Or you could say that ports beyond 0 are camera sensors. I guess
> > this is good enough for now though, it can be changed later on with the
> > source if a need arises.
>
> Well, I'd say that selecting between two sensors is going to be the
> common case. If someone needs more than two, it will no longer be
> simple GPIO, so we'll have some fixing to do.
It could be two GPIOs --- that's how the GPIO I2C mux works.
But I'd be surprised if someone ever uses something like that again. ;-)
>
> > Btw. was it still considered a problem that the endpoint properties for the
> > sensors can be different? With the g_routing() pad op which is to be added,
> > the ISP driver (should actually go to a framework somewhere) could parse the
> > graph and find the proper endpoint there.
>
> I don't know about g_routing. I added g_endpoint_config method that
> passes the configuration, and that seems to work for me.
>
> I don't see g_routing in next-20170201 . Is there place to look?
I think there was a patch by Laurent to LMML quite some time ago. I suppose
that set will be repicked soonish.
I don't really object using g_endpoint_config() as a temporary solution; I'd
like to have Laurent's opinion on that though. Another option is to wait,
but we've already waited a looong time (as in total).
I'll reply to the other patch containing the code.
Hi!
> > > > +Required properties
> > > > +===================
> > > > +
> > > > +compatible : must contain "video-bus-switch"
> > >
> > > How generic is this? Should we have e.g. nokia,video-bus-switch? And if so,
> > > change the file name accordingly.
> >
> > Generic for "single GPIO controls the switch", AFAICT. But that should
> > be common enough...
>
> Um, yes. Then... how about: video-bus-switch-gpio? No Nokia prefix.
Ok, done. I also fixed the english a bit.
> > > > +reg : The interface:
> > > > + 0 - port for image signal processor
> > > > + 1 - port for first camera sensor
> > > > + 2 - port for second camera sensor
> > >
> > > I'd say this must be pretty much specific to the one in N900. You could have
> > > more ports. Or you could say that ports beyond 0 are camera sensors. I guess
> > > this is good enough for now though, it can be changed later on with the
> > > source if a need arises.
> >
> > Well, I'd say that selecting between two sensors is going to be the
> > common case. If someone needs more than two, it will no longer be
> > simple GPIO, so we'll have some fixing to do.
>
> It could be two GPIOs --- that's how the GPIO I2C mux works.
>
> But I'd be surprised if someone ever uses something like that
> again. ;-)
I'd say.. lets handle that when we see hardware like that.
> > > Btw. was it still considered a problem that the endpoint properties for the
> > > sensors can be different? With the g_routing() pad op which is to be added,
> > > the ISP driver (should actually go to a framework somewhere) could parse the
> > > graph and find the proper endpoint there.
> >
> > I don't know about g_routing. I added g_endpoint_config method that
> > passes the configuration, and that seems to work for me.
> >
> > I don't see g_routing in next-20170201 . Is there place to look?
>
> I think there was a patch by Laurent to LMML quite some time ago. I suppose
> that set will be repicked soonish.
>
> I don't really object using g_endpoint_config() as a temporary solution; I'd
> like to have Laurent's opinion on that though. Another option is to wait,
> but we've already waited a looong time (as in total).
Laurent, do you have some input here? We have simple "2 cameras
connected to one signal processor" situation here. We need some way of
passing endpoint configuration from the sensors through the switch. I
did this:
> > @@ -415,6 +416,8 @@ struct v4l2_subdev_video_ops {
> > const struct v4l2_mbus_config *cfg);
> > int (*s_rx_buffer)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, void *buf,
> > unsigned int *size);
> > + int (*g_endpoint_config)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > + struct v4l2_of_endpoint *cfg);
Google of g_routing tells me:
9) Highly reconfigurable hardware - Julien Beraud
- 44 sub-devices connected with an interconnect.
- As long as formats match, any sub-device could be connected to any
- other sub-device through a link.
- The result is 44 * 44 links at worst.
- A switch sub-device proposed as the solution to model the
- interconnect. The sub-devices are connected to the switch
- sub-devices through the hardware links that connect to the
- interconnect.
- The switch would be controlled through new IOCTLs S_ROUTING and
- G_ROUTING.
- Patches available:
http://git.linuxtv.org/cgit.cgi/pinchartl/media.git/log/?h=xilinx-wip
but the patches are from 2005. So I guess I'll need some guidance here...
> I'll reply to the other patch containing the code.
Ok, thanks.
Pavel
Hi Pavel,
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 10:56:10PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > +Required properties
> > > > > +===================
> > > > > +
> > > > > +compatible : must contain "video-bus-switch"
> > > >
> > > > How generic is this? Should we have e.g. nokia,video-bus-switch? And if so,
> > > > change the file name accordingly.
> > >
> > > Generic for "single GPIO controls the switch", AFAICT. But that should
> > > be common enough...
> >
> > Um, yes. Then... how about: video-bus-switch-gpio? No Nokia prefix.
>
> Ok, done. I also fixed the english a bit.
>
> > > > > +reg : The interface:
> > > > > + 0 - port for image signal processor
> > > > > + 1 - port for first camera sensor
> > > > > + 2 - port for second camera sensor
> > > >
> > > > I'd say this must be pretty much specific to the one in N900. You could have
> > > > more ports. Or you could say that ports beyond 0 are camera sensors. I guess
> > > > this is good enough for now though, it can be changed later on with the
> > > > source if a need arises.
> > >
> > > Well, I'd say that selecting between two sensors is going to be the
> > > common case. If someone needs more than two, it will no longer be
> > > simple GPIO, so we'll have some fixing to do.
> >
> > It could be two GPIOs --- that's how the GPIO I2C mux works.
> >
> > But I'd be surprised if someone ever uses something like that
> > again. ;-)
>
> I'd say.. lets handle that when we see hardware like that.
Yes. :-)
>
> > > > Btw. was it still considered a problem that the endpoint properties for the
> > > > sensors can be different? With the g_routing() pad op which is to be added,
> > > > the ISP driver (should actually go to a framework somewhere) could parse the
> > > > graph and find the proper endpoint there.
> > >
> > > I don't know about g_routing. I added g_endpoint_config method that
> > > passes the configuration, and that seems to work for me.
> > >
> > > I don't see g_routing in next-20170201 . Is there place to look?
> >
> > I think there was a patch by Laurent to LMML quite some time ago. I suppose
> > that set will be repicked soonish.
> >
> > I don't really object using g_endpoint_config() as a temporary solution; I'd
> > like to have Laurent's opinion on that though. Another option is to wait,
> > but we've already waited a looong time (as in total).
>
> Laurent, do you have some input here? We have simple "2 cameras
> connected to one signal processor" situation here. We need some way of
> passing endpoint configuration from the sensors through the switch. I
> did this:
>
> > > @@ -415,6 +416,8 @@ struct v4l2_subdev_video_ops {
> > > const struct v4l2_mbus_config *cfg);
> > > int (*s_rx_buffer)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, void *buf,
> > > unsigned int *size);
> > > + int (*g_endpoint_config)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > > + struct v4l2_of_endpoint *cfg);
>
> Google of g_routing tells me:
>
> 9) Highly reconfigurable hardware - Julien Beraud
>
> - 44 sub-devices connected with an interconnect.
> - As long as formats match, any sub-device could be connected to any
> - other sub-device through a link.
> - The result is 44 * 44 links at worst.
> - A switch sub-device proposed as the solution to model the
> - interconnect. The sub-devices are connected to the switch
> - sub-devices through the hardware links that connect to the
> - interconnect.
> - The switch would be controlled through new IOCTLs S_ROUTING and
> - G_ROUTING.
> - Patches available:
> http://git.linuxtv.org/cgit.cgi/pinchartl/media.git/log/?h=xilinx-wip
>
> but the patches are from 2005. So I guess I'll need some guidance here...
Yeah, that's where it began (2015?), but right now I can only suggest to
wait until there's more. My estimate is within next couple of weeks /
months. But it won't be years.
Hi!
> > 9) Highly reconfigurable hardware - Julien Beraud
> >
> > - 44 sub-devices connected with an interconnect.
> > - As long as formats match, any sub-device could be connected to any
> > - other sub-device through a link.
> > - The result is 44 * 44 links at worst.
> > - A switch sub-device proposed as the solution to model the
> > - interconnect. The sub-devices are connected to the switch
> > - sub-devices through the hardware links that connect to the
> > - interconnect.
> > - The switch would be controlled through new IOCTLs S_ROUTING and
> > - G_ROUTING.
> > - Patches available:
> > http://git.linuxtv.org/cgit.cgi/pinchartl/media.git/log/?h=xilinx-wip
> >
> > but the patches are from 2005. So I guess I'll need some guidance here...
>
> Yeah, that's where it began (2015?), but right now I can only suggest to
> wait until there's more. My estimate is within next couple of weeks /
> months. But it won't be years.
Ok, week or two would be ok, couple of months is not. And all I need
is single hook in common structure.
So if g_endpoint_config hook looks sane to _you_, I suggest we simply
proceed. Now, maybe Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
or Laurent or Julien will want a different solution, but
then... they'll have to suggest something doable now, not in couple of
months.
Does that sound like a plan?
Mauro added to cc list, so we can get some input.
Best regards,
Pavel
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 10:12:20PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > 9) Highly reconfigurable hardware - Julien Beraud
> > >
> > > - 44 sub-devices connected with an interconnect.
> > > - As long as formats match, any sub-device could be connected to any
> > > - other sub-device through a link.
> > > - The result is 44 * 44 links at worst.
> > > - A switch sub-device proposed as the solution to model the
> > > - interconnect. The sub-devices are connected to the switch
> > > - sub-devices through the hardware links that connect to the
> > > - interconnect.
> > > - The switch would be controlled through new IOCTLs S_ROUTING and
> > > - G_ROUTING.
> > > - Patches available:
> > > http://git.linuxtv.org/cgit.cgi/pinchartl/media.git/log/?h=xilinx-wip
> > >
> > > but the patches are from 2005. So I guess I'll need some guidance here...
> >
> > Yeah, that's where it began (2015?), but right now I can only suggest to
> > wait until there's more. My estimate is within next couple of weeks /
> > months. But it won't be years.
>
> Ok, week or two would be ok, couple of months is not. And all I need
> is single hook in common structure.
>
> So if g_endpoint_config hook looks sane to _you_, I suggest we simply
> proceed. Now, maybe Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
> or Laurent or Julien will want a different solution, but
> then... they'll have to suggest something doable now, not in couple of
> months.
>
> Does that sound like a plan?
>
> Mauro added to cc list, so we can get some input.
side note: It's an kernel-internal API only used by the media
subsystem. Code can be easily updated to use an improved API
at any time.
-- Sebastian
Hi Pavel,
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 23:56:10 EET Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >>>> +Required properties
> >>>> +===================
> >>>> +
> >>>> +compatible : must contain "video-bus-switch"
> >>>
> >>> How generic is this? Should we have e.g. nokia,video-bus-switch? And
> >>> if so, change the file name accordingly.
> >>
> >> Generic for "single GPIO controls the switch", AFAICT. But that should
> >> be common enough...
> >
> > Um, yes. Then... how about: video-bus-switch-gpio? No Nokia prefix.
>
> Ok, done. I also fixed the english a bit.
>
> >>>> +reg : The interface:
> >>>> + 0 - port for image signal processor
> >>>> + 1 - port for first camera sensor
> >>>> + 2 - port for second camera sensor
> >>>
> >>> I'd say this must be pretty much specific to the one in N900. You
> >>> could have more ports. Or you could say that ports beyond 0 are
> >>> camera sensors. I guess this is good enough for now though, it can be
> >>> changed later on with the source if a need arises.
> >>
> >> Well, I'd say that selecting between two sensors is going to be the
> >> common case. If someone needs more than two, it will no longer be
> >> simple GPIO, so we'll have some fixing to do.
> >
> > It could be two GPIOs --- that's how the GPIO I2C mux works.
> >
> > But I'd be surprised if someone ever uses something like that
> > again. ;-)
>
> I'd say.. lets handle that when we see hardware like that.
>
> >>> Btw. was it still considered a problem that the endpoint properties
> >>> for the sensors can be different? With the g_routing() pad op which is
> >>> to be added, the ISP driver (should actually go to a framework
> >>> somewhere) could parse the graph and find the proper endpoint there.
> >>
> >> I don't know about g_routing. I added g_endpoint_config method that
> >> passes the configuration, and that seems to work for me.
> >>
> >> I don't see g_routing in next-20170201 . Is there place to look?
> >
> > I think there was a patch by Laurent to LMML quite some time ago. I
> > suppose that set will be repicked soonish.
> >
> > I don't really object using g_endpoint_config() as a temporary solution;
> > I'd like to have Laurent's opinion on that though. Another option is to
> > wait, but we've already waited a looong time (as in total).
>
> Laurent, do you have some input here? We have simple "2 cameras
> connected to one signal processor" situation here. We need some way of
> passing endpoint configuration from the sensors through the switch. I
> did this:
Could you give me a bit more information about the platform you're targeting:
how the switch is connected, what kind of switch it is, and what endpoint
configuration data you need ?
> >> @@ -415,6 +416,8 @@ struct v4l2_subdev_video_ops {
> >> const struct v4l2_mbus_config *cfg);
> >> int (*s_rx_buffer)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, void *buf,
> >> unsigned int *size);
> >> + int (*g_endpoint_config)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >> + struct v4l2_of_endpoint *cfg);
>
> Google of g_routing tells me:
>
> 9) Highly reconfigurable hardware - Julien Beraud
>
> - 44 sub-devices connected with an interconnect.
> - As long as formats match, any sub-device could be connected to any
> - other sub-device through a link.
> - The result is 44 * 44 links at worst.
> - A switch sub-device proposed as the solution to model the
> - interconnect. The sub-devices are connected to the switch
> - sub-devices through the hardware links that connect to the
> - interconnect.
> - The switch would be controlled through new IOCTLs S_ROUTING and
> - G_ROUTING.
> - Patches available:
> http://git.linuxtv.org/cgit.cgi/pinchartl/media.git/log/?h=xilinx-wip
>
> but the patches are from 2005. So I guess I'll need some guidance here...
You made me feel very old for a moment. The patches are from 2015 :-)
> > I'll reply to the other patch containing the code.
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 07:54:12PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> On Saturday, 4 February 2017 23:56:10 EET Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > >>>> +Required properties
> > >>>> +===================
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> +compatible : must contain "video-bus-switch"
> > >>>
> > >>> How generic is this? Should we have e.g. nokia,video-bus-switch? And
> > >>> if so, change the file name accordingly.
> > >>
> > >> Generic for "single GPIO controls the switch", AFAICT. But that should
> > >> be common enough...
> > >
> > > Um, yes. Then... how about: video-bus-switch-gpio? No Nokia prefix.
> >
> > Ok, done. I also fixed the english a bit.
> >
> > >>>> +reg : The interface:
> > >>>> + 0 - port for image signal processor
> > >>>> + 1 - port for first camera sensor
> > >>>> + 2 - port for second camera sensor
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd say this must be pretty much specific to the one in N900. You
> > >>> could have more ports. Or you could say that ports beyond 0 are
> > >>> camera sensors. I guess this is good enough for now though, it can be
> > >>> changed later on with the source if a need arises.
> > >>
> > >> Well, I'd say that selecting between two sensors is going to be the
> > >> common case. If someone needs more than two, it will no longer be
> > >> simple GPIO, so we'll have some fixing to do.
> > >
> > > It could be two GPIOs --- that's how the GPIO I2C mux works.
> > >
> > > But I'd be surprised if someone ever uses something like that
> > > again. ;-)
> >
> > I'd say.. lets handle that when we see hardware like that.
> >
> > >>> Btw. was it still considered a problem that the endpoint properties
> > >>> for the sensors can be different? With the g_routing() pad op which is
> > >>> to be added, the ISP driver (should actually go to a framework
> > >>> somewhere) could parse the graph and find the proper endpoint there.
> > >>
> > >> I don't know about g_routing. I added g_endpoint_config method that
> > >> passes the configuration, and that seems to work for me.
> > >>
> > >> I don't see g_routing in next-20170201 . Is there place to look?
> > >
> > > I think there was a patch by Laurent to LMML quite some time ago. I
> > > suppose that set will be repicked soonish.
> > >
> > > I don't really object using g_endpoint_config() as a temporary solution;
> > > I'd like to have Laurent's opinion on that though. Another option is to
> > > wait, but we've already waited a looong time (as in total).
> >
> > Laurent, do you have some input here? We have simple "2 cameras
> > connected to one signal processor" situation here. We need some way of
> > passing endpoint configuration from the sensors through the switch. I
> > did this:
>
> Could you give me a bit more information about the platform you're targeting:
> how the switch is connected, what kind of switch it is, and what endpoint
> configuration data you need ?
>
> > >> @@ -415,6 +416,8 @@ struct v4l2_subdev_video_ops {
> > >> const struct v4l2_mbus_config *cfg);
> > >> int (*s_rx_buffer)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, void *buf,
> > >> unsigned int *size);
> > >> + int (*g_endpoint_config)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > >> + struct v4l2_of_endpoint *cfg);
> >
> > Google of g_routing tells me:
> >
> > 9) Highly reconfigurable hardware - Julien Beraud
> >
> > - 44 sub-devices connected with an interconnect.
> > - As long as formats match, any sub-device could be connected to any
> > - other sub-device through a link.
> > - The result is 44 * 44 links at worst.
> > - A switch sub-device proposed as the solution to model the
> > - interconnect. The sub-devices are connected to the switch
> > - sub-devices through the hardware links that connect to the
> > - interconnect.
> > - The switch would be controlled through new IOCTLs S_ROUTING and
> > - G_ROUTING.
> > - Patches available:
> > http://git.linuxtv.org/cgit.cgi/pinchartl/media.git/log/?h=xilinx-wip
> >
> > but the patches are from 2005. So I guess I'll need some guidance here...
>
> You made me feel very old for a moment. The patches are from 2015 :-)
There are up-to-date patches here:
<URL:https://git.linuxtv.org/sailus/media_tree.git/log/?h=vc>
Hi,
On 20.12.2017 19:54, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> On Saturday, 4 February 2017 23:56:10 EET Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>>>>> +Required properties
>>>>>> +===================
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +compatible : must contain "video-bus-switch"
>>>>>
>>>>> How generic is this? Should we have e.g. nokia,video-bus-switch? And
>>>>> if so, change the file name accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Generic for "single GPIO controls the switch", AFAICT. But that should
>>>> be common enough...
>>>
>>> Um, yes. Then... how about: video-bus-switch-gpio? No Nokia prefix.
>>
>> Ok, done. I also fixed the english a bit.
>>
>>>>>> +reg : The interface:
>>>>>> + 0 - port for image signal processor
>>>>>> + 1 - port for first camera sensor
>>>>>> + 2 - port for second camera sensor
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say this must be pretty much specific to the one in N900. You
>>>>> could have more ports. Or you could say that ports beyond 0 are
>>>>> camera sensors. I guess this is good enough for now though, it can be
>>>>> changed later on with the source if a need arises.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'd say that selecting between two sensors is going to be the
>>>> common case. If someone needs more than two, it will no longer be
>>>> simple GPIO, so we'll have some fixing to do.
>>>
>>> It could be two GPIOs --- that's how the GPIO I2C mux works.
>>>
>>> But I'd be surprised if someone ever uses something like that
>>> again. ;-)
>>
>> I'd say.. lets handle that when we see hardware like that.
>>
>>>>> Btw. was it still considered a problem that the endpoint properties
>>>>> for the sensors can be different? With the g_routing() pad op which is
>>>>> to be added, the ISP driver (should actually go to a framework
>>>>> somewhere) could parse the graph and find the proper endpoint there.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about g_routing. I added g_endpoint_config method that
>>>> passes the configuration, and that seems to work for me.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see g_routing in next-20170201 . Is there place to look?
>>>
>>> I think there was a patch by Laurent to LMML quite some time ago. I
>>> suppose that set will be repicked soonish.
>>>
>>> I don't really object using g_endpoint_config() as a temporary solution;
>>> I'd like to have Laurent's opinion on that though. Another option is to
>>> wait, but we've already waited a looong time (as in total).
>>
>> Laurent, do you have some input here? We have simple "2 cameras
>> connected to one signal processor" situation here. We need some way of
>> passing endpoint configuration from the sensors through the switch. I
>> did this:
>
> Could you give me a bit more information about the platform you're targeting:
> how the switch is connected, what kind of switch it is, and what endpoint
http://plan9.stanleylieber.com/hardware/n900/n900.schematics.pdf, on
page 2, see N5801 and N5802.
> configuration data you need ?
>
>>>> @@ -415,6 +416,8 @@ struct v4l2_subdev_video_ops {
>>>> const struct v4l2_mbus_config *cfg);
>>>> int (*s_rx_buffer)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, void *buf,
>>>> unsigned int *size);
>>>> + int (*g_endpoint_config)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>>>> + struct v4l2_of_endpoint *cfg);
>>
>> Google of g_routing tells me:
>>
>> 9) Highly reconfigurable hardware - Julien Beraud
>>
>> - 44 sub-devices connected with an interconnect.
>> - As long as formats match, any sub-device could be connected to any
>> - other sub-device through a link.
>> - The result is 44 * 44 links at worst.
>> - A switch sub-device proposed as the solution to model the
>> - interconnect. The sub-devices are connected to the switch
>> - sub-devices through the hardware links that connect to the
>> - interconnect.
>> - The switch would be controlled through new IOCTLs S_ROUTING and
>> - G_ROUTING.
>> - Patches available:
>> http://git.linuxtv.org/cgit.cgi/pinchartl/media.git/log/?h=xilinx-wip
>>
>> but the patches are from 2005. So I guess I'll need some guidance here...
>
> You made me feel very old for a moment. The patches are from 2015 :-)
>
>>> I'll reply to the other patch containing the code.
>
Regards,
Ivo
Hi!
> > > I don't really object using g_endpoint_config() as a temporary solution;
> > > I'd like to have Laurent's opinion on that though. Another option is to
> > > wait, but we've already waited a looong time (as in total).
> >
> > Laurent, do you have some input here? We have simple "2 cameras
> > connected to one signal processor" situation here. We need some way of
> > passing endpoint configuration from the sensors through the switch. I
> > did this:
>
> Could you give me a bit more information about the platform you're targeting:
> how the switch is connected, what kind of switch it is, and what endpoint
> configuration data you need ?
Platform is Nokia N900, Ivaylo already gave pointer to schematics.
Switch is controlled using GPIO, and basically there's CSI
configuration that would normally be in the device tree, but now we
have two CSI configurations to select from...
> > 9) Highly reconfigurable hardware - Julien Beraud
> >
> > - 44 sub-devices connected with an interconnect.
> > - As long as formats match, any sub-device could be connected to any
> > - other sub-device through a link.
> > - The result is 44 * 44 links at worst.
> > - A switch sub-device proposed as the solution to model the
> > - interconnect. The sub-devices are connected to the switch
> > - sub-devices through the hardware links that connect to the
> > - interconnect.
> > - The switch would be controlled through new IOCTLs S_ROUTING and
> > - G_ROUTING.
> > - Patches available:
> > http://git.linuxtv.org/cgit.cgi/pinchartl/media.git/log/?h=xilinx-wip
> >
> > but the patches are from 2005. So I guess I'll need some guidance here...
>
> You made me feel very old for a moment. The patches are from 2015 :-)
Sorry about that :-).
Pavel
@@ -91,6 +91,16 @@ config VIDEO_OMAP3_DEBUG
---help---
Enable debug messages on OMAP 3 camera controller driver.
+config VIDEO_BUS_SWITCH
+ tristate "Video Bus switch"
+ depends on VIDEO_V4L2 && VIDEO_V4L2_SUBDEV_API
+ depends on MEDIA_CONTROLLER
+ depends on OF
+ ---help---
+ Driver for a GPIO controlled video bus switch, which is used to
+ connect two camera sensors to the same port a the image signal
+ processor.
+
config VIDEO_PXA27x
tristate "PXA27x Quick Capture Interface driver"
depends on VIDEO_DEV && HAS_DMA
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_MMP_CAMERA) += marvell-ccic/
obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_OMAP3) += omap3isp/
obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_PXA27x) += pxa_camera.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_BUS_SWITCH) += video-bus-switch.o
+
obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_VIU) += fsl-viu.o
obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_VIVID) += vivid/
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+/*
+ * Generic driver for video bus switches
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2015 Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
+ * Copyright (C) 2016 Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+ * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
+ * version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ *
+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+ * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
+ * General Public License for more details.
+ */
+
+#define DEBUG
+
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/of.h>
+#include <linux/of_graph.h>
+#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
+#include <media/v4l2-async.h>
+#include <media/v4l2-device.h>
+#include <media/v4l2-of.h>
+
+/*
+ * TODO:
+ * isp_subdev_notifier_complete() calls v4l2_device_register_subdev_nodes()
+ */
+
+#define CSI_SWITCH_SUBDEVS 2
+#define CSI_SWITCH_PORTS 3
+
+enum vbs_state {
+ CSI_SWITCH_DISABLED = 0,
+ CSI_SWITCH_PORT_1 = 1,
+ CSI_SWITCH_PORT_2 = 2,
+};
+
+struct vbs_src_pads {
+ struct media_entity *src;
+ int src_pad;
+};
+
+struct vbs_data {
+ struct gpio_desc *swgpio;
+ struct v4l2_subdev subdev;
+ struct v4l2_async_notifier notifier;
+ struct media_pad pads[CSI_SWITCH_PORTS];
+ struct vbs_src_pads src_pads[CSI_SWITCH_PORTS];
+ struct v4l2_of_endpoint vep[CSI_SWITCH_PORTS];
+ enum vbs_state state;
+};
+
+struct vbs_async_subdev {
+ struct v4l2_subdev *sd;
+ struct v4l2_async_subdev asd;
+ u8 port;
+};
+
+static int vbs_of_parse_nodes(struct device *dev, struct vbs_data *pdata)
+{
+ struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier = &pdata->notifier;
+ struct device_node *node = NULL;
+
+ notifier->subdevs = devm_kcalloc(dev, CSI_SWITCH_SUBDEVS,
+ sizeof(*notifier->subdevs), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!notifier->subdevs)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ notifier->num_subdevs = 0;
+ while (notifier->num_subdevs < CSI_SWITCH_SUBDEVS &&
+ (node = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(dev->of_node, node))) {
+ struct v4l2_of_endpoint vep;
+ struct vbs_async_subdev *ssd;
+
+ /* skip first port (connected to isp) */
+ v4l2_of_parse_endpoint(node, &vep);
+ if (vep.base.port == 0) {
+ struct device_node *ispnode;
+
+ ispnode = of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(node);
+ if (!ispnode) {
+ dev_warn(dev, "bad remote port parent\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ of_node_put(node);
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ ssd = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ssd), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!ssd) {
+ of_node_put(node);
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+
+ ssd->port = vep.base.port;
+
+ notifier->subdevs[notifier->num_subdevs] = &ssd->asd;
+
+ ssd->asd.match.of.node = of_graph_get_remote_port_parent(node);
+ of_node_put(node);
+ if (!ssd->asd.match.of.node) {
+ dev_warn(dev, "bad remote port parent\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ ssd->asd.match_type = V4L2_ASYNC_MATCH_OF;
+ pdata->vep[notifier->num_subdevs] = vep;
+ notifier->num_subdevs++;
+ }
+
+ return notifier->num_subdevs;
+}
+
+static int vbs_registered(struct v4l2_subdev *sd)
+{
+ struct v4l2_device *v4l2_dev = sd->v4l2_dev;
+ struct vbs_data *pdata;
+ int err;
+
+ dev_dbg(sd->dev, "registered, init notifier...\n");
+
+ pdata = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
+
+ err = v4l2_async_notifier_register(v4l2_dev, &pdata->notifier);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static struct v4l2_subdev *vbs_get_remote_subdev(struct v4l2_subdev *sd)
+{
+ struct vbs_data *pdata = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
+ struct media_entity *src;
+
+ if (pdata->state == CSI_SWITCH_DISABLED)
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENXIO);
+
+ src = pdata->src_pads[pdata->state].src;
+
+ return media_entity_to_v4l2_subdev(src);
+}
+
+static int vbs_link_setup(struct media_entity *entity,
+ const struct media_pad *local,
+ const struct media_pad *remote, u32 flags)
+{
+ struct v4l2_subdev *sd = media_entity_to_v4l2_subdev(entity);
+ struct vbs_data *pdata = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
+ bool enable = flags & MEDIA_LNK_FL_ENABLED;
+
+ if (local->index > CSI_SWITCH_PORTS - 1)
+ return -ENXIO;
+
+ /* no configuration needed on source port */
+ if (local->index == 0)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (!enable) {
+ if (local->index == pdata->state) {
+ pdata->state = CSI_SWITCH_DISABLED;
+
+ /* Make sure we have both cameras enabled */
+ gpiod_set_value(pdata->swgpio, 1);
+ return 0;
+ } else {
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* there can only be one active sink at the same time */
+ if (pdata->state != CSI_SWITCH_DISABLED)
+ return -EBUSY;
+
+ dev_dbg(sd->dev, "Link setup: going to config %d\n", local->index);
+
+ gpiod_set_value(pdata->swgpio, local->index == CSI_SWITCH_PORT_2);
+ pdata->state = local->index;
+
+ sd = vbs_get_remote_subdev(sd);
+ if (IS_ERR(sd))
+ return PTR_ERR(sd);
+
+ pdata->subdev.ctrl_handler = sd->ctrl_handler;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int vbs_subdev_notifier_bound(struct v4l2_async_notifier *async,
+ struct v4l2_subdev *subdev,
+ struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd)
+{
+ struct vbs_data *pdata = container_of(async,
+ struct vbs_data, notifier);
+ struct vbs_async_subdev *ssd =
+ container_of(asd, struct vbs_async_subdev, asd);
+ struct media_entity *sink = &pdata->subdev.entity;
+ struct media_entity *src = &subdev->entity;
+ int sink_pad = ssd->port;
+ int src_pad;
+
+ if (sink_pad >= sink->num_pads) {
+ dev_err(pdata->subdev.dev, "no sink pad in internal entity!\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ for (src_pad = 0; src_pad < subdev->entity.num_pads; src_pad++) {
+ if (subdev->entity.pads[src_pad].flags & MEDIA_PAD_FL_SOURCE)
+ break;
+ }
+
+ if (src_pad >= src->num_pads) {
+ dev_err(pdata->subdev.dev, "no source pad in external entity\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ pdata->src_pads[sink_pad].src = src;
+ pdata->src_pads[sink_pad].src_pad = src_pad;
+ ssd->sd = subdev;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int vbs_subdev_notifier_complete(struct v4l2_async_notifier *async)
+{
+ struct vbs_data *pdata = container_of(async, struct vbs_data, notifier);
+ struct media_entity *sink = &pdata->subdev.entity;
+ int sink_pad;
+
+ for (sink_pad = 1; sink_pad < CSI_SWITCH_PORTS; sink_pad++) {
+ struct media_entity *src = pdata->src_pads[sink_pad].src;
+ int src_pad = pdata->src_pads[sink_pad].src_pad;
+ int err;
+
+ err = media_create_pad_link(src, src_pad, sink, sink_pad, 0);
+ if (err < 0)
+ return err;
+
+ dev_dbg(pdata->subdev.dev, "create link: %s[%d] -> %s[%d])\n",
+ src->name, src_pad, sink->name, sink_pad);
+ }
+
+ return v4l2_device_register_subdev_nodes(pdata->subdev.v4l2_dev);
+}
+
+static int vbs_s_stream(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int enable)
+{
+ struct v4l2_subdev *subdev = vbs_get_remote_subdev(sd);
+
+ if (IS_ERR(subdev))
+ return PTR_ERR(subdev);
+
+ return v4l2_subdev_call(subdev, video, s_stream, enable);
+}
+
+static int vbs_g_endpoint_config(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_of_endpoint *cfg)
+{
+ struct vbs_data *pdata = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
+ dev_dbg(sd->dev, "vbs_g_endpoint_config... active port is %d\n", pdata->state);
+ *cfg = pdata->vep[pdata->state - 1];
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+
+static const struct v4l2_subdev_internal_ops vbs_internal_ops = {
+ .registered = &vbs_registered,
+};
+
+static const struct media_entity_operations vbs_media_ops = {
+ .link_setup = vbs_link_setup,
+ .link_validate = v4l2_subdev_link_validate,
+};
+
+/* subdev video operations */
+static const struct v4l2_subdev_video_ops vbs_video_ops = {
+ .s_stream = vbs_s_stream,
+ .g_endpoint_config = vbs_g_endpoint_config,
+};
+
+static const struct v4l2_subdev_ops vbs_ops = {
+ .video = &vbs_video_ops,
+};
+
+static int video_bus_switch_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct vbs_data *pdata;
+ int err = 0;
+
+ /* platform data */
+ pdata = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!pdata) {
+ dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "video-bus-switch: not enough memory\n");
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pdata);
+
+ /* switch gpio */
+ pdata->swgpio = devm_gpiod_get(&pdev->dev, "switch", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
+ if (IS_ERR(pdata->swgpio)) {
+ err = PTR_ERR(pdata->swgpio);
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to request gpio: %d\n", err);
+ return err;
+ }
+
+ /* find sub-devices */
+ err = vbs_of_parse_nodes(&pdev->dev, pdata);
+ if (err < 0) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to parse nodes: %d\n", err);
+ return err;
+ }
+
+ pdata->state = CSI_SWITCH_DISABLED;
+ pdata->notifier.bound = vbs_subdev_notifier_bound;
+ pdata->notifier.complete = vbs_subdev_notifier_complete;
+
+ /* setup subdev */
+ pdata->pads[0].flags = MEDIA_PAD_FL_SOURCE;
+ pdata->pads[1].flags = MEDIA_PAD_FL_SINK;
+ pdata->pads[2].flags = MEDIA_PAD_FL_SINK;
+
+ v4l2_subdev_init(&pdata->subdev, &vbs_ops);
+ pdata->subdev.dev = &pdev->dev;
+ pdata->subdev.owner = pdev->dev.driver->owner;
+ strncpy(pdata->subdev.name, dev_name(&pdev->dev), V4L2_SUBDEV_NAME_SIZE);
+ v4l2_set_subdevdata(&pdata->subdev, pdata);
+ pdata->subdev.entity.function = MEDIA_ENT_F_SWITCH;
+ pdata->subdev.entity.flags |= MEDIA_ENT_F_SWITCH;
+ pdata->subdev.entity.ops = &vbs_media_ops;
+ pdata->subdev.internal_ops = &vbs_internal_ops;
+ err = media_entity_pads_init(&pdata->subdev.entity, CSI_SWITCH_PORTS,
+ pdata->pads);
+ if (err < 0) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to init media entity: %d\n", err);
+ return err;
+ }
+
+ /* register subdev */
+ err = v4l2_async_register_subdev(&pdata->subdev);
+ if (err < 0) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register v4l2 subdev: %d\n", err);
+ media_entity_cleanup(&pdata->subdev.entity);
+ return err;
+ }
+
+ dev_info(&pdev->dev, "video-bus-switch registered\n");
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int video_bus_switch_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct vbs_data *pdata = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+
+ v4l2_async_notifier_unregister(&pdata->notifier);
+ v4l2_async_unregister_subdev(&pdata->subdev);
+ media_entity_cleanup(&pdata->subdev.entity);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct of_device_id video_bus_switch_of_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "video-bus-switch" },
+ { },
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, video_bus_switch_of_match);
+
+static struct platform_driver video_bus_switch_driver = {
+ .driver = {
+ .name = "video-bus-switch",
+ .of_match_table = video_bus_switch_of_match,
+ },
+ .probe = video_bus_switch_probe,
+ .remove = video_bus_switch_remove,
+};
+
+module_platform_driver(video_bus_switch_driver);
+
+MODULE_AUTHOR("Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>");
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Video Bus Switch");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
+MODULE_ALIAS("platform:video-bus-switch");
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
#include <media/v4l2-dev.h>
#include <media/v4l2-fh.h>
#include <media/v4l2-mediabus.h>
+#include <media/v4l2-of.h>
/* generic v4l2_device notify callback notification values */
#define V4L2_SUBDEV_IR_RX_NOTIFY _IOW('v', 0, u32)
@@ -415,6 +416,8 @@ struct v4l2_subdev_video_ops {
const struct v4l2_mbus_config *cfg);
int (*s_rx_buffer)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, void *buf,
unsigned int *size);
+ int (*g_endpoint_config)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
+ struct v4l2_of_endpoint *cfg);
};
/**
@@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ struct media_device_info {
* MEDIA_ENT_F_IF_VID_DECODER and/or MEDIA_ENT_F_IF_AUD_DECODER.
*/
#define MEDIA_ENT_F_TUNER (MEDIA_ENT_F_OLD_SUBDEV_BASE + 5)
+#define MEDIA_ENT_F_SWITCH (MEDIA_ENT_F_OLD_SUBDEV_BASE + 6)
#define MEDIA_ENT_F_V4L2_SUBDEV_UNKNOWN MEDIA_ENT_F_OLD_SUBDEV_BASE