Re: [RFD] use-counting V4L2 clocks

Laurent Pinchart
2013-10-15T11:45:20Z

Hi Guennadi,

On Tuesday 15 October 2013 10:05:45 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 October 2013 23:57:55 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > Hi Mauro,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your long detailed mail. For the sake of brevity however I'll
> > > drop most of it in this my reply, everybody interested should be able to
> > > read the original.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2013, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > In other words, what you're actually proposing is to change the
> > > > default used by most drivers since 1997 from a POWER ON/CLOCK ON
> > > > default, into a POWER OFF/ CLOCK OFF default.
> > >
> > > To remind, we are now trying to fix a problem, present in the current
> > > kernel. In one specific driver. And the proposed fix only affects one
> > > specific (family of) driver(s) - the em28xx USB driver. The two patches
> > > are quite simple:
> > >
> > > (1) the first patch adds a clock to the em28xx driver, which only
> > > affects ov2640, because only it uses that clock
> > >
> > > (2) the second patch adds a call to subdev's .s_power(1) method. And I
> > > cannot see how this change can be a problem either. Firstly I haven't
> > > found many subdevices, used by em28xx, that implement .s_power().
> > > Secondly, I don't think any of them does any kind of depth-counting in
> > > that method, apart from the one, that we're trying to fix - ov2640.
> > >
> > > > Well, for me, it sounds that someone will need to re-test all
> > > > supported devices, to be sure that such change won't cause
> > > > regressions.
> > > >
> > > > If you are willing to do such tests (and to get all those hardware to
> > > > be sure that nothing will break) or to find someone to do it for you,
> > > > I'm ok with such change.
> > >
> > > I'm willing to try to identify all subdevices, used by em28xx, look at
> > > their .s_power() methods and report my analysis, whether calling
> > > .s_power(1) for those respective drivers could cause problems. Would
> > > this suffice?
> >
> > From a high level point of view, I believe that's the way to go. V4L2
> > clock enable/disable calls must be balanced, as we will later switch to
> > the non-V4L2 clock API that requires calls to be balanced.
> >
> > This pushes the problem back to the .s_power() implementation that call
> > the clock enable/disable functions. As a temporary measure, we could add a
> > use count to the .s_power() handlers of drivers used by both power-
> > unbalanced and power-balanced bridges that call the clock API or the
> > regulator API in their .s_power() implementation (that's just ov2640 if
> > I'm not mistaken). This would ensure that clock calls are always balanced,
> > even if the .s_power() calls are not.
> >
> > Now I'd like to avoid that as possible: In the long term I believe we
> > should switch all .s_power() calls to balanced mode, a detailed analysis
> > of the subdevices used by em28xx would thus have my preference. However,
> > if it helps solving the issue right now, buying us time to fix the
> > problem correctly, I could live with it.
>
> Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember, that we wanted to
> eliminate .s_power() methods completely eventually. We could try to find
> that old discussion, but it would need some searching. In short - only
> subdevice drivers know, when their devices need power or clock. Higher
> layers just request specific functions - setting parameters, starting or
> stopping streaming etc., and subdev drivers decide when they have to
> access (I2C) registers, which regulators they have to turn on for that,
> when they have to power on the sensor array and activate the data
> interface... IIRC we were thinking about some exceptions like SoC internal
> subdevices, which are initialised by the main SoC camera interface driver.
> It was then suggested, that that central camera interface driver also
> knows when those internal subdevices should be turned up and down.
> Although I'm not sure even that would be needed.
>
> Shall we not maybe move in that direction?

I believe you remember correctly, and that's indeed a good idea. However, now
might not be the best time to do so, we need to fix the em28xx problem. What's
your preferred solution there ?

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart