Re: [PATCH 4/7] mfd: ds90ux9xx: add TI DS90Ux9xx de-/serializer MFD driver

Hi Vladimir,

On Friday, 12 October 2018 16:59:27 EEST Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

On 10/12/2018 04:01 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Friday, 12 October 2018 14:47:52 EEST Kieran Bingham wrote:

quoted

On 12/10/18 11:58, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

quoted

On 10/12/2018 12:20 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote:

quoted

On 12/10/18 09:39, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

quoted

On 10/12/2018 09:03 AM, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

quoted

From: Vladimir Zapolskiy <redacted>

The change adds I2C device driver for TI DS90Ux9xx de-/serializers,
support of subdevice controllers is done in separate drivers,
because not all IC functionality may be needed in particular
situations, and this can be fine grained controlled in device tree.

The development of the driver was a collaborative work, the
contribution done by Balasubramani Vivekanandan includes:
* original implementation of the driver based on a reference
driver,
* regmap powered interrupt controller support on serializers,
* support of implicitly or improperly specified in device tree ICs,
* support of device properties and attributes: backward compatible
  mode, low frequency operation mode, spread spectrum clock
  generator.

Contribution by Steve Longerbeam:
* added ds90ux9xx_read_indirect() function,
* moved number of links property and added
ds90ux9xx_num_fpd_links(),
* moved and updated ds90ux9xx_get_link_status() function to core
driver,
* added fpd_link_show device attribute.

Sandeep Jain added support of pixel clock edge configuration.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <redacted>
---

 drivers/mfd/Kconfig           |  14 +
 drivers/mfd/Makefile          |   1 +
 drivers/mfd/ds90ux9xx-core.c  | 879
 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/mfd/ds90ux9xx.h |  42 ++
 4 files changed, 936 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/ds90ux9xx-core.c
 create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/ds90ux9xx.h

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
index 8c5dfdce4326..a969fa123f64 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig

@@ -1280,6 +1280,20 @@ config MFD_DM355EVM_MSP

 	  boards.  MSP430 firmware manages resets and power sequencing,
 	  inputs from buttons and the IR remote, LEDs, an RTC, and more.

+config MFD_DS90UX9XX
+	tristate "TI DS90Ux9xx FPD-Link de-/serializer driver"
+	depends on I2C && OF
+	select MFD_CORE
+	select REGMAP_I2C
+	help
+	  Say yes here to enable support for TI DS90UX9XX de-/serializer

ICs.
+
+	  This driver provides basic support for setting up the
de-/serializer
+	  chips. Additional functionalities like connection handling to
+	  remote de-/serializers, I2C bridging, pin multiplexing, GPIO
+	  controller and so on are provided by separate drivers and
should
+	  enabled individually.

This is not an MFD driver.

Why do you think so? The representation of the ICs into device tree
format of hardware description shows that this is a truly MFD driver
with multiple IP subcomponents naturally mapped into MFD cells.

This driver does too much real work ('stuff') to be an MFD driver.
MFD drivers should not need to care of; links, gates, modes, pixels,
frequencies maps or properties.  Nor should they contain elaborate
sysfs structures to control the aforementioned 'stuff'.

Granted, there may be some code in there which could be appropriate
for an MFD driver.  However most of it needs moving out into a
function driver (or two).

quoted

Basically it is possible to replace explicit of_platform_populate()
by adding a "simple-mfd" compatible, if it is desired.

quoted

After a 30 second Google of what this device actually does, perhaps
drivers/media might be a better fit?

I assume it would be quite unusual to add a driver with NO media
functions and controls into drivers/media.

drivers/media may very well not be the correct place for this.  In my
30 second Google, I saw that this device has a lot to do with cameras,
hence my media association.

If *all* else fails, there is always drivers/misc, but this should be
avoided if at all possible.

The device as a whole is FPD Link for camera devices I believe, but it

I still don't understand (I could be biased though) why there is such
a strong emphasis on cameras and media stuff in the discussion.

No, "the device as a whole is FPD Link for camera devices" is a wrong
statement. On hand I have a number of boards with
serializers/deserializers from the TI DS90Ux9xx IC series and sensors
are NOT connected to them.

I understand what is not connected to them, but could you tell us what is
connected then ? :-)

You got it right, the most two common ways of using the ICs:

1) SoC -> serializer ("local") -> deserializer ("remote") -> panel,
2) sensor -> serializer ("remote") -> deserializer ("local") -> SoC.

The point is that the published drivers naturally support both data chains
and even more of them, e.g. transferring audio data only or just setting
GPIO line signals on a "remote" PCB.

At the cost of code being added where it doesn't belong (as pointed out by 
Lee) and DT bindings not following the standard models (data connections 
described by OF graph and control buses described by parent-child 
relationships). Let's focus on fixing the DT bindings first, and we'll then 
see how we can handle the driver side.

quoted

quoted

Yes - My apologies, this is a good point.

Especially as the clue is in the name "Flat Panel Display".
I have been stuck with my GMSL hat on for too long.

Even GMSL is in the same boat. It's just that 'we' are using GMSL for
cameras, but it can be used equally for displays and data.

These devices are serialiser-deserialiser pairs with power and control
paths.

And data paths, that are designed to transport video (and audio in this
case). The devices are thus media-focussed, although in a broader sense
than drivers/ media/

The devices are media-focused only in the sense that media functionality
casts a shadow onto inalienable GPIO or I2C bridging functionality.

Seriously, do you really expect that they will be used for the sole purpose of 
transporting a few GPIOs ?

Anyway MFD driver representation of the ICs allows to keep pinmuxing, V4L2,
DRM, audio bridging, interrupt controller and all other subcontroller
functions separately, configure them separately, store under separate
driver frameworks etc. That's a perfect flexibility on drivers level
as I can see it.

The resulting complexity is still overkill. As mentioned above, let's focus on 
the DT bindings first.

quoted

quoted

Essentially they are multi purpose buses - which do not yet have a home.
We have used media as a home because of our use case.

The use case whether they transfer frames from a camera or to a display
are of course closely related, but ultimately covered by two separate
subsystems at the pixel level (DRM vs V4L, or other for other data)

Perhaps as they are buses - on a level with USB or I2C (except they can
of course carry I2C or Serial as well as 'bi-directional video' etc ),
they are looking for their own subsystem.

Except I don't think we don't want to add a new subsystem for just one
(or two) devices...

I'm not sure a new subsystem is needed. As you've noted there's an overlap
between drivers/media/ and drivers/gpu/drm/ in terms of supported
hardware. We even have a devices supported by two drivers, one in
drivers/media/ and one in drivers/gpu/drm/ (I'm thinking about the
adv7511 in particular). This is a well known issue, and so far nothing
has been done in mainline to try and solve it.

Right, presumably this IC series would have *cell* drivers in both
drivers/media and drivers/gpu/drm/ and other folders like drivers/pinctrl/
or sound/.

Even with cell drivers you'll have the problem of DRM vs. V4L2. My advice is 
to go for DRM only for now.

The interesting thing is that the published drivers do NOT require any new
cell drivers (at least non-trivial ones with >200 LoC) in drivers/media/
or drivers/gpu/drm/ to get the expected operation of DS90Ux925/926/927/928
ICs (any ser-des connection combination), and we have a DS90Ux940 cell
driver targeted to drivers/media/

That's because you abuse the rest of the APIs to cover up for what's lacking 
in media/ and gpu/drm/ :-)

quoted

Trying to find another home in drivers/mfd/ to escape from the problem
isn't a good solution in my opinion. The best option from a Linux point
of view would be to unify V4L2 and DRM/KMS when it comes to bridge
support, but that's a long way down the road (I won't complain if you
want to give it a go though :-)). As your use cases are display, focused,
I would propose to start with drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/, and leave the
problem of camera support for first person who will have such a use case.

Well, what should I do with pinctrl or audio bridging device drivers?

I'll defer the audio problems to people more knowledgeable about audio. For 
pinctrl I believe you're making it way more complicated than it should be. 
Again, DT bindings first, drivers second. And please provide DT examples for 
real use cases, I think that will be key to proper DT bindings design.

Stick all drivers together into an unmaintainable clod of tangled code?

You know this isn't what I proposed, let's stay fair in this discussion. Your 
proposal is too complex in my opinion, I want to simplify it, which will 
result in easier to maintain code.

Let's better exploit the excellent opportunity for code modularity given
by the MFD framework.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

certainly has different functions which are broken out in this
implementation.

No, there is absolutely nothing broken out from the presented MFD
drivers, the drivers are completely integral and basically I don't
expect any.

If you are concerned about media functionality, the correspondent MFD
*cell* drivers will be added into drivers/media, drivers/gpu/drm or
whatever is to be a proper place.

quoted

I think it might be quite awkward having the i2c components in
drivers/i2c and the media components in drivers/media/i2c, so what
about creating drivers/media/i2c/fpd-link (or such) as a container?

I open drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig and all entries with no exception are
under from 'if VIDEO_V4L2'. The MFD drivers do NOT require on depend on
VIDEO_V4L2 or any other multimedia frameworks, nor the MFD drivers
export any multimedia controls.

quoted

Our GMSL implementation is also a complex camera(s) device - but does
not yet use the MFD framework, perhaps that's something to add to my
todo list.

Nope, please don't :-) The GMSL (de)serializers are no MFD devices either.

quoted

quoted

Okay, but the TI DS90Ux9xx is NOT a camera device, and it is NOT a
multimedia device, but it is a pure MFD device so the argument is not
applicable.

For the reasons pointed out in the review of other patches, and also
pointed out by Lee in his review of this patch, I disagree with that.
This isn't an MFD device.

Eh, it is an MFD device. Just probably drivers/mfd is really not the best
place to store this particular MFD device driver...

We still disagree. Those chips are video serializers and deserializers with a 
few additional features to support those use cases. The fact that additional 
support features are available don't automatically make them a true MFD. To 
give you another example, my camera ISP that happens to be able to output a 
clock for the camera sensor is also not an MFD, and I can still support clock 
control through CCF without requiring the MFD framework.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

We currently keep all of the complexity within the max9286.c driver,
but I could foresee that being split further if more devices add to the
complexity of managing the bus. At which point we might want an
equivalent drivers/media/i2c/gmsl/ perhaps?

quoted

quoted

Laurent, can you please share your opinion?

Done :-)

I'd like to mention that I would prefer focusing on the DT bindings first,
and

Sure, thank you for your comments :)

quoted

then move to the driver side. In that area I would like to have a full
example of a system using these chips, as the "initial support" is too
limited for a proper review. This won't come as a surprise, but I will
expect the OF graph bindings to be used to model data connections.

The leverage of "the initial support" to "the complete support" requires:
* audio bridge cell driver -- trivial, just one mute/unmute control,
* interrupt controller cell driver -- trivial, but for sake of perfection
  it requires some minimal changes in drivers/base/regmap/regmap-irq.c

This is a topic we haven't discussed yet, don't jump to conclusions and 
consider that an interrupt controller driver is needed. Could you please 
explain the use cases and point to the right documentation ?

* DS90Ux940 MIPI CSI-2 -- non-trivial one, but we have it ready, I just
  don't want to add it to the pile at the moment, otherwise we'll continue
  discussing cameras, and I'd like to postpone it :)

I think it plays a crucial role in the architecture design. I don't want to 
reach an agreement on an architecture that wouldn't include CSI-2 support and 
then find out that it was the wrong path to add CSI-2 support.

No more than that is needed to get absolutely complete support of 5 claimed
DS90UB9xx ICs, really. 5 other DS90UH9xx will require HDCP support in
addition.

I'm not too concern by HDCP, as long as you have a DRM bridge driver, it 
shouldn't be a big issue.

I'll try to roll out an example of DTS snippet soon.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart