linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 16/34] [media] add Omnivision OV5640 sensor driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 30 May 2017 09:56:32 +0300
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
To:     Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@...il.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, shawnguo@...nel.org,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, fabio.estevam@....com,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, mchehab@...nel.org, hverkuil@...all.nl,
        nick@...anahar.org, markus.heiser@...marIT.de,
        p.zabel@...gutronix.de, laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
        bparrot@...com, geert@...ux-m68k.org, arnd@...db.de,
        sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, minghsiu.tsai@...iatek.com,
        tiffany.lin@...iatek.com, jean-christophe.trotin@...com,
        horms+renesas@...ge.net.au, niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se,
        robert.jarzmik@...e.fr, songjun.wu@...rochip.com,
        andrew-ct.chen@...iatek.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        shuah@...nel.org, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com, pavel@....cz,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Steve Longerbeam <steve_longerbeam@...tor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 16/34] [media] add Omnivision OV5640 sensor driver

Hi Steve,

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 02:50:34PM -0700, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> >>+
> >>+static int ov5640_s_ctrl(struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl)
> >>+{
> >>+	struct v4l2_subdev *sd = ctrl_to_sd(ctrl);
> >>+	struct ov5640_dev *sensor = to_ov5640_dev(sd);
> >>+	int ret = 0;
> >>+
> >>+	mutex_lock(&sensor->lock);
> >Could you use the same lock for the controls as you use for the rest? Just
> >setting handler->lock after handler init does the trick.
> 
> Can you please rephrase, I don't follow. "same lock for the controls as
> you use for the rest" - there's only one device lock owned by this driver
> and I am already using that same lock.

There's another in the control handler. You could use your own lock for the
control handler as well.

> 
> 
> ><snip>
> >>+
> >>+static int ov5640_s_stream(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int enable)
> >>+{
> >>+	struct ov5640_dev *sensor = to_ov5640_dev(sd);
> >>+	int ret = 0;
> >>+
> >>+	mutex_lock(&sensor->lock);
> >>+
> >>+#if defined(CONFIG_MEDIA_CONTROLLER)
> >>+	if (sd->entity.stream_count > 1)
> >The entity stream_count isn't connected to the number of times s_stream(sd,
> >true) is called. Please remove the check.
> 
> It's incremented by media_pipeline_start(), even if the entity is already
> a member of the given pipeline.
> 
> I added this check because in imx-media, the ov5640 can be streaming
> concurrently to multiple video capture devices, and each capture device
> calls
> media_pipeline_start() at stream on, which increments the entity stream
> count.
> 
> So if one capture device issues a stream off while others are still
> streaming,
> ov5640 should remain at stream on. So the entity stream count is being
> used as a streaming usage counter. Is there a better way to do this? Should
> I use a private stream use counter instead?

Different drivers may use media_pipeline_start() in different ways. Stream
control shouldn't depend on that count. This could cause issues in using the
driver with other ISP / receiver drivers.

I think it should be enough to move the check to the imx driver in this
case.

> 
> 
> 
> ><snip>
> >
> >>+
> >>+free_ctrls:
> >>+	v4l2_ctrl_handler_free(&sensor->ctrls.handler);
> >>+entity_cleanup:
> >>+	mutex_destroy(&sensor->lock);
> >>+	media_entity_cleanup(&sensor->sd.entity);
> >>+	regulator_bulk_disable(OV5640_NUM_SUPPLIES, sensor->supplies);
> >Should this still be here?
> >
> >>+	return ret;
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+static int ov5640_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> >>+{
> >>+	struct v4l2_subdev *sd = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> >>+	struct ov5640_dev *sensor = to_ov5640_dev(sd);
> >>+
> >>+	regulator_bulk_disable(OV5640_NUM_SUPPLIES, sensor->supplies);
> >Ditto.
> 
> I don't understand. regulator_bulk_disable() is still needed, am I missing
> something?

You still need to enable it first. I don't see that being done in probe. As
the driver implements the s_power() op, I don't see a need for powering the
device on at probe time (and conversely off at remove time).

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@....fi	XMPP: sailus@...iisi.org.uk