[PATCH RFC 26/46] drivers/base: provide an infrastructure for componentised subsystems

Laurent Pinchart
2014-03-19T17:22:14Z

Hi Russell,

(CC'ing Philipp Zabel who might be able to provide feedback as a user of the
component framework)

Could you please have a look at the questions below and provide an answer when
you'll have time ? I'd like to bridge the gap between the component and the
V4L2 asynchronous registration implementations.

On Friday 07 March 2014 00:24:33 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 February 2014 22:19:39 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:00:25PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > Hi Russell
> > >
> > > (I suspect this my email will be rejected by ALKML too like other my
> > > recent emails, but at least other MLs will pick it up and individual CCs
> > > too, so, if replying, maybe it would be good to keep my entire reply,
> > > all the more that it's going to be very short)
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Russell King wrote:
> > > > Subsystems such as ALSA, DRM and others require a single card-level
> > > > device structure to represent a subsystem. However, firmware tends to
> > > > describe the individual devices and the connections between them.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, we need a way to gather up the individual component devices
> > > > together, and indicate when we have all the component devices.
> > > >
> > > > We do this in DT by providing a "superdevice" node which specifies
> > > >
> > > > the components, eg:
> > > > imx-drm {
> > > > compatible = "fsl,drm";
> > > > crtcs = <&ipu1>;
> > > > connectors = <&hdmi>;
> > > > };
> > >
> > > It is a pity linux-media wasn't CC'ed and apparently V4L developers
> > > didn't notice this and other related patches in a "clean up" series, and
> > > now this patch is already in the mainline. But at least I'd like to ask
> > > whether the bindings, defined in
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt and
> > > implemented in drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-of.c have been considered
> > > for this job, and - if so - why have they been found unsuitable?
> > > Wouldn't it have been better to use and - if needed - extend them to
> > > cover any deficiencies? Even though the implementation is currently
> > > located under drivers/media/v4l2-code/ it's pretty generic and should be
> > > easily transferable to a more generic location.
> >
> > The component helpers have nothing to do with DT apart from solving
> > the problem of how to deal with subsystems which expect a single device,
> > but we have a group of devices and their individual drivers to cope with.
> > Subsystems like DRM and ALSA.
>
> (and V4L2)
>
> Point duly taken. First of all I want to mention that your proposal is
> greatly appreciated. This is a problem that crosses subsystem boundaries,
> and should thus be addressed centrally.
>
> However, we (as in the V4L2 community, and me personally) would have
> appreciated to be CC'ed on the proposal. As you might know we already had a
> solution for this problem, albeit V4L2-specific, in drivers/media/v4l2-
> core/v4l2-async.c. Whether or not this solution should have been made
> generic instead of coming up with a new separate implementation would of
> course have been debatable, but the most important point would have been to
> make sure that v4l2-async could easily be implemented on top of the common
> component architecture.
>
> The topic is particularly hot given that a similar solution was also
> proposed as part of the now defunct (or at least hibernating) common
> display framework. If I had replied to this mail thread without sleeping on
> it first I might not have known better and have got half-paranoid,
> wondereding whether there had been a deliberate attempt to fast-track this
> API before the V4L2 developers noticed. To be perfectly clear, there is
> *NO* implicit or explicit such accusation here, as I know better.
>
> Let's all take this as a positive opportunity to cooperate more closely,
> media devices still need a huge effort to be cleanly supported on modern
> hardware, and we'll need all the development power we can get.
>
> Accordingly, I would like to comment on the component API, despite the fact
> that it has been merged in mainline already. The first thing that I believe
> is missing is documentation. Do you have any pending patch for that, either
> as kerneldoc or as a text file for Documentation/ ? As I've read the code
> to understand it I might have missed so design goals, so please bear with
> the stupid questions that may follow.
>
> I'll first provide a brief comparison of the two models to make the rest of
> the comments easier to understand.
>
> v4l2-async calls the component master object v4l2_async_notifier. The base
> component child object is a v4l2_subdev instance instead of being a plain
> device. v4l2_subdev instances are stored in v4l2-async lists similarly to
> how the component framework stores objects, except that the list head is
> directly embedded inside the v4l2_subdev structure instead of being part of
> a separate structure allocated by the framework.
>
> The notifier has three callback functions, bound, complete and unbind. The
> bound function is called when one component has been bound to the master.
> Similarly the unbind function is called when one component is about to be
> unbound from the master. The complete function is called when all components
> have been bound, and is thus equivalent to the bind function of the
> component framework.
>
> Notifiers are registered along with a list of match entries. A match entry
> is roughly equivalent to the compare function passed to
> component_master_add_child, except that it includes built-in support for
> matching on an OF node, dev_name or I2C bus number and child address.
>
> Whenever a subdev (component child) is registered with
> v4l2_async_register_subdev (equivalent to component_add), the list of
> notifiers (masters) is walked and their match entries are processed. If a
> matching entry is found the subdev is bound to the notifier immediately,
> otherwise it is added to a list of unbound subdevices (component_list).
> Whenever a notifier (component master) is registered with
> v4l2_async_notifier_register (component_master_add) the list of unbound
> subdevs is walked and every match entry of the notifier is tested. If a
> matching entry is found the subdev is bound to the notifier.
>
> I've seen a couple of core differences in concept between your component
> model and the v4l2-async model:
>
> - The component framework uses private master and component structures.
> Wouldn't it simplify the code from a memory management point of view to
> expose the master structure (which would then be embedded in
> driver-specific structures) and the component structure (which would be
> embedded in struct device) ? The latter would be slightly more intrusive
> from a struct device point of view, so I don't have a strong opinion there
> yet, exposing the master structure only might be better.
>
> - The component framework requires the master to provide an add_components
> operation that will call the component_master_add_child function for every
> component it needs, with a compare function. The add child function is
> called when the master is registered, and then for every component added to
> the system. I'm not sure to understand the design decisions behind this,
> but these two levels of indirection appear pretty complex and confusing.
> Wouldn't it be simpler to pass an array of match entries to the master
> registration function instead and remove the add_components operation ? A
> match entry would basically be a structure with a compare function and a
> compare_data pointer.
>
> We could also extend the match entry with explicit support for OF node and
> I2C bus number + address matching as those are the most common cases, or at
> least provide a couple of standard compare functions for those cases.
>
> - The component framework doesn't provide partial bind support. Children are
> bound to the master only when all children are available. This makes it
> impossible in practice to implement v4l2-async on top of the component
> framework. What would you think about adding optional partial bind support
> ? The master operations would then have partial bind, complete bind,
> partial unbind and complete unbind functions. Drivers that only need full
> bind support could set the partial bind and unbind functions to NULL.
>
> > It is completely agnostic to whether you're using platform data, DT or
> > even ACPI - this code could *not* care less. None of that comes anywhere
> > near what this patch does. It merely provides a way to collect up
> > individual devices from co-operating drivers, and control their binding
> > such that a subsystem like DRM or ALSA can be presented with a "card"
> > level view of the hardware rather than a multi-device medusa with all
> > the buggy, racy, crap fsckage that people come up to make that kind of
> > thing work.
> >
> > Now, as for the binding above, first, what does "eg" mean... and
> > secondly, how would a binding which refers to crtcs and connectors
> > have anything to do with ALSA? Clearly this isn't an example of a
> > binding for an ALSA use, which was talked about in the very first
> > line of the above commit commentry. So it's quite clear that what is
> > given there is an example of how it /could/ be used.
> >
> > I suppose I could have instead turned imx-drm into a completely unusable
> > mess by not coming up with some kind of binding, and instead submitted
> > a whole pile of completely untested code. Alternatively, I could've
> > used the OF binding as you're suggesting, but that would mean radically
> > changing the /existing/ bindings for the IPU as a whole - something
> > which others are better suited at as they have a /much/ better
> > understanding of the complexities of this hardware than I.
> >
> > So, what I have done is implemented - for a driver in staging which is
> > still subject to ongoing development and non-stable DT bindings -
> > something which allows forward progress with a *minimum* of disruption
> > to the existing DT bindings for everyone, while still allowing forward
> > progress.
> >
> > Better bindings for imx-drm are currently being worked on. Philipp
> > Zabel of Pengutronix is currently looking at it, and has posted many
> > RFC patches on this very subject, including moving the V4L2 OF helpers
> > to a more suitable location. OF people have been involved in that
> > discussion over the preceding weeks, and there's a working implementation
> > of imx-drm using these helpers from v4l2.
> >
> > I'm finding people who are working in the same area and trying to get
> > everyone talking to each other so that we /do/ end up with a set of
> > bindings for the display stuff which are suitable for everyone. Tomi
> > from TI has already expressed his input to this ongoing discussion.
> >
> > You're welcome to get involved in those discussions too.
> >
> > I hope this makes it clear, and clears up the confusion.
> >
> > Thanks.

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart