Hi Ramiro,

On 02/22/2017 12:57 PM, Ramiro Oliveira wrote:

Hi Vladimir

On 2/21/2017 10:37 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

quoted

Hi Sakari,

On 02/21/2017 11:48 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:

quoted

Hi, Vladimir!

How do you do? :-)

deferring execution of boring tasks by doing code review :)

quoted

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:48:09PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

quoted

Hi Ramiro,

On 02/21/2017 10:13 PM, Ramiro Oliveira wrote:

quoted

Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for your feedback

On 2/21/2017 3:58 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

quoted

Hi Ramiro,

On 02/17/2017 03:14 PM, Ramiro Oliveira wrote:

quoted

Create device tree bindings documentation.

Signed-off-by: Ramiro Oliveira <roliveir-HKixBCOQz3hWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <redacted>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov5647.txt       | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov5647.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov5647.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov5647.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..31956426d3b9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov5647.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+Omnivision OV5647 raw image sensor
+---------------------------------
+
+OV5647 is a raw image sensor with MIPI CSI-2 and CCP2 image data interfaces
+and CCI (I2C compatible) control bus.
+
+Required properties:
+
+- compatible		: "ovti,ov5647".
+- reg			: I2C slave address of the sensor.
+- clocks		: Reference to the xclk clock.

Is "xclk" clock a pixel clock or something else?

It's an external oscillator.

hmm, I suppose a clock of any type could serve as a clock for the sensor.
It can be an external oscillator on a particular board, or it can be
something else on another board.

Any clock source could be used I presume.

That's exactly my point, and it is a reason to rename "xclk" to something
more generic.

xclk it's the name being used in the camera datasheet, but I can change it to
something more generic

Ah, if the name comes from the sensor datasheet, then it should be okay
to keep it.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Can you please describe what for does ov5647 sensor need this clock, what
is its function?

Camera modules (sensors) quite commonly require an external clock as they do
not have an oscillator on their own. A lot of devices under
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ have similar properties.

So, what should be a better replacement of "xclk" in the description above?

E.g.

- clocks		: Phandle to a device supply clock.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+- clock-names		: Should be "xclk".

We got an agreement that "clock-names" property is removed, nevertheless
if it is added back, is should not be "xclk".

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

You can remove this property, because there is only one source clock.

Ok.

quoted

quoted

+- clock-frequency	: Frequency of the xclk clock.

And after the last updates in the driver this property can be removed as well.

But I'm still using clk_get_rate in the driver, if I remove the frequency here
the probing will fail.

I doubt it, there should be no connection between a custom "clock-frequency"
device tree property in a clock consumer device node and clk_get_rate() function
from the CCF, which takes a clock provider as its argument.

The purpose is to make sure the clock frequency is really usable for the
device, in this particular case the driver can work with one particular
frequency.

That said, the driver does not appear to use the property at the moment. It
should.

It'd be good to verify that the rate matches: clk_set_rate() is not
guaranteed to produce the requested clock rate, and the driver could
conceivably be updated with support for more frequencies. There are
typically a few frequencies that a SoC such a sensor is connected can
support, and 25 MHz is not one of the common frequencies. With this
property, the frequency would be always there explicitly.

I can provide my arguments given at v8 review time again, since I don't
see a contradiction with my older comments.

Briefly "clock-frequency" as a device tree property on a consumer side
can be considered as redundant, because there is a mechanism to specify
a wanted clock frequency on a clock provider side right in a board DTB.

So, the clock frequency set up is delegated to CCF, and when any other
than 25 MHz frequencies are got supported, that's only the matter of
driver updates, DTBs won't be touched.

In the driver, I'm using this piece of code to check that the frequency is 25Mhz

	xclk_freq = clk_get_rate(sensor->xclk);
	if (xclk_freq != 25000000) {
		dev_err(dev, "Unsupported clock frequency: %u\n", xclk_freq);
		return -EINVAL;
	}

So if I don't define it here the probing will fail. Do you have another
suggestion for this?

I don't completely understand, why does it fail? "clock-frequency" property
is not a standard device node property on a clock consumer side, so, if we're
still talking about v9 version of the driver, adding the property or removing
it should have no effect.

Let's consider the simplest possible situation, when "xclk" is actually
a fixed rate 25MHz oscillator (the clock device node is "fixed-clock"
compatible), for such a clock clk_get_rate() returns 25MHz rate, the assert
has to be passed. In case of a more complex scenario please reference to
clock-bindings.txt documentation, in particular please take a look at
"assigned-clocks" and "assigned-clock-rates" properties.

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html