by Sergei Shtylyov

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] dt-bindings: media: max9286: Document 'maxim,reverse-channel-microvolt'

Hello!

On 13.01.2021 21:55, Jacopo Mondi wrote:

> Document the 'reverse-channel-microvolt' vendor property in the

Where is "maxim,"?

> bindings document of the max9286 driver.
>
> The newly introduced property allows to specifying the initial

Specify?

> configuration of the GMSL reverse control channel to accommodate
> remote serializers pre-programmed with the high threshold power
> supply noise immunity enabled.
>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <[email protected]>
[...]

MBR, Sergei

2021-01-14 09:10:05

by Laurent Pinchart

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] fixup! media: i2c: rdacm21: Break-out ov10640 initialization

Hi Jacopo,

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 08:52:28AM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 01:23:25AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 07:55:01PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > > The embedded OV490 ISP chip provides a secondary SCCB interface and
> > > two GPIO lines to control the connected OV10640 image sensor.
> > >
> > > Break out the OV10640 initialization from the OV490 initialization and
> > > explicitely control the powerdown and reset GPIOs. After the image
> >
> > s/explicitely/explicitly/
> >
> > > sensor has been hard reset, implement a more clear handling of the
> > > secondary SCCB interface to read the image sensor chip ID.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/media/i2c/rdacm21.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm21.c b/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm21.c
> > > index 0428e3209463..944009687de5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm21.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm21.c
> > > @@ -30,11 +30,24 @@
> > > #define OV490_PAGE_HIGH_REG 0xfffd
> > > #define OV490_PAGE_LOW_REG 0xfffe
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * The SCCB slave handling is undocumented; the registers naming scheme is
> > > + * totally arbitrary.
> > > + */
> > > +#define OV490_SCCB_SLAVE_WRITE 0x00
> > > +#define OV490_SCCB_SLAVE_READ 0x01
> > > +#define OV490_SCCB_SLAVE0_DIR 0x80195000
> > > +#define OV490_SCCB_SLAVE0_ADDR_HIGH 0x80195001
> > > +#define OV490_SCCB_SLAVE0_ADDR_LOW 0x80195002
> > > +
> > > #define OV490_DVP_CTRL3 0x80286009
> > >
> > > #define OV490_ODS_CTRL_FRAME_OUTPUT_EN 0x0c
> > > #define OV490_ODS_CTRL 0x8029d000
> > >
> > > +#define OV490_HOST_CMD 0x808000c0
> > > +#define OV490_HOST_CMD_TRIGGER 0xc1
> > > +
> > > #define OV490_ID_VAL 0x0490
> > > #define OV490_ID(_p, _v) ((((_p) & 0xff) << 8) | ((_v) & 0xff))
> > > #define OV490_PID 0x8080300a
> > > @@ -42,12 +55,22 @@
> > > #define OV490_PID_TIMEOUT 20
> > > #define OV490_OUTPUT_EN_TIMEOUT 300
> > >
> > > +#define OV490_GPIO0_RESETB 0x01
> >
> > Shouldn't this be named just OV490_GPIO0 ? The fact that it's connected
> > to the RESETB signal of the OV10640 is board-specific, not an OV490
> > intrinsic property.
> >
> > BIT(0) ?
> >
> > > +#define OV490_SPWDN0 0x01
> >
> > Same here.
> >
>
> Correct, I'll fix...
>
> > > +#define OV490_GPIO_SEL0 0x80800050
> > > +#define OV490_GPIO_SEL1 0x80800051
> > > +#define OV490_GPIO_DIRECTION0 0x80800054
> > > +#define OV490_GPIO_DIRECTION1 0x80800055
> > > +#define OV490_GPIO_OUTPUT_VALUE0 0x80800058
> > > +#define OV490_GPIO_OUTPUT_VALUE1 0x80800059
> > > +
> > > #define OV490_ISP_HSIZE_LOW 0x80820060
> > > #define OV490_ISP_HSIZE_HIGH 0x80820061
> > > #define OV490_ISP_VSIZE_LOW 0x80820062
> > > #define OV490_ISP_VSIZE_HIGH 0x80820063
> > >
> > > -#define OV10640_ID_LOW 0xa6
> > > +#define OV10640_ID_HIGH 0xa6
> > > +#define OV10640_CHIP_ID 0x300a
> > > #define OV10640_PIXEL_RATE 55000000
> > >
> > > struct rdacm21_device {
> > > @@ -306,6 +329,39 @@ static const struct v4l2_subdev_ops rdacm21_subdev_ops = {
> > > .pad = &rdacm21_subdev_pad_ops,
> > > };
> > >
> > > +static int ov10640_initialize(struct rdacm21_device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > + u8 val;
> > > +
> > > + /* Power-up OV10640 by setting RESETB and PWDNB pins high. */
> > > + ov490_write_reg(dev, OV490_GPIO_SEL0, OV490_GPIO0_RESETB);
> > > + ov490_write_reg(dev, OV490_GPIO_SEL1, OV490_SPWDN0);
> > > + ov490_write_reg(dev, OV490_GPIO_DIRECTION0, OV490_GPIO0_RESETB);
> > > + ov490_write_reg(dev, OV490_GPIO_DIRECTION1, OV490_SPWDN0);
> > > + ov490_write_reg(dev, OV490_GPIO_OUTPUT_VALUE0, OV490_GPIO0_RESETB);
> > > + ov490_write_reg(dev, OV490_GPIO_OUTPUT_VALUE0, OV490_SPWDN0);
> > > + usleep_range(3000, 5000);
> >
> > So the OV490 firmware doesn't handle this ?
>
> Do you mean the delay or the reset of the ov10640 ?
>
> I need the delay here otherwise reading the ov10640 id fails below.
> Same for the reset :)
>
> About reset, it seems it does not... The ov490 settings are loaded
> from an EEPROM but I don't know what it content is, maybe it's just
> about the imaging-related settings ?

I meant the configuration of the GPIOs and the reset of the sensor, yes.
I was just curious, as I was expecting the firmware to handle all the
platform-specific data.

> > > +
> > > + /* Read OV10640 ID to test communications. */
> > > + ov490_write_reg(dev, OV490_SCCB_SLAVE0_DIR, OV490_SCCB_SLAVE_READ);
> > > + ov490_write_reg(dev, OV490_SCCB_SLAVE0_ADDR_HIGH, OV10640_CHIP_ID >> 8);
> > > + ov490_write_reg(dev, OV490_SCCB_SLAVE0_ADDR_LOW, (u8)OV10640_CHIP_ID);
> > > +
> > > + /* Trigger SCCB slave transaction and give it some time to complete. */
> > > + ov490_write_reg(dev, OV490_HOST_CMD, OV490_HOST_CMD_TRIGGER);
> > > + usleep_range(1000, 1500);
> > > +
> > > + ov490_read_reg(dev, OV490_SCCB_SLAVE0_DIR, &val);
> > > + if (val != OV10640_ID_HIGH) {
> > > + dev_err(dev->dev, "OV10640 ID mismatch: (0x%02x)\n", val);
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > + }
> >
> > Would it make sense to create an ov490_sensor_read() helper ?
>
> While developing this I went and also tested reading other registers
> of the ov10640 and I had contradictory results. I'm mostly wondering
> if OV490_HOST_CMD_TRIGGER is correct in all cases, as I have some BSP
> code that uses a different value.
>
> Can we wait for an helper until we have more users ?

I don't mind.

> > > +
> > > + dev_dbg(dev->dev, "OV10640 ID = 0x%2x\n", val);
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static int ov490_initialize(struct rdacm21_device *dev)
> > > {
> > > u8 pid, ver, val;
> > > @@ -349,20 +405,11 @@ static int ov490_initialize(struct rdacm21_device *dev)
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - /* Read OV10640 Id to test communications. */
> > > - ov490_write_reg(dev, 0x80195000, 0x01);
> > > - ov490_write_reg(dev, 0x80195001, 0x30);
> > > - ov490_write_reg(dev, 0x80195002, 0x0a);
> > > - ov490_write_reg(dev, 0x808000c0, 0xc1);
> > > -
> > > - ov490_read_reg(dev, 0x80195000, &val);
> > > - if (val != OV10640_ID_LOW) {
> > > - dev_err(dev->dev, "OV10640 ID mismatch: (0x%02x)\n", val);
> > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - dev_dbg(dev->dev, "OV10640 ID = 0x%2x\n", val);
> > > + ret = ov10640_initialize(dev);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > >
> > > + /* Program OV490 with register-value table. */
> > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ov490_regs_wizard); ++i) {
> > > ret = ov490_write(dev, ov490_regs_wizard[i].reg,
> > > ov490_regs_wizard[i].val);

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart