[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6F68CD33-70E6-47C1-9E89-5E2AA776879F@goldelico.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:12:38 +0200
From: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To: Sylwester Nawrocki <snawrocki@...nel.org>
Cc: Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@...com>,
Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
Yannick FERTRE <yannick.fertre@...com>,
Discussions about the Letux Kernel
<letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] DT bindings: add bindings for ov965x camera module
> Am 28.06.2017 um 00:57 schrieb Sylwester Nawrocki <snawrocki@...nel.org>:
>
> On 06/27/2017 07:48 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>> Am 26.06.2017 um 22:04 schrieb Sylwester Nawrocki <snawrocki@...nel.org>:
>>>
>>> On 06/26/2017 12:35 PM, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>>>> What I am missing to support the GTA04 camera is the control of the optional "vana-supply".
>>>>> So the driver does not power up the camera module when needed and therefore probing fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> - vana-supply: a regulator to power up the camera module.
>>>>>
>>>>> Driver code is not complex to add:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I saw it in your code, but as I don't have any programmable power
>>>> supply on my setup, I have not pushed this commit.
>>>
>>> Since you are about to add voltage supplies to the DT binding I'd suggest
>>> to include all three voltage supplies of the sensor chip. Looking at the OV9650
>>> and the OV9655 datasheet there are following names used for the voltage supply
>>> pins:
>>>
>>> AVDD - Analog power supply,
>>> DVDD - Power supply for digital core logic,
>>> DOVDD - Digital power supply for I/O.
>>
>> The latter two are usually not independently switchable from the SoC power
>> the module is connected to.
>>
>> And sometimes DVDD and DOVDD are connected together.
>>
>> So the driver can't make much use of knowing or requesting them because the
>> 1.8V supply is always active, even during suspend.
>>
>>>
>>> I doubt the sensor can work without any of these voltage supplies, thus
>>> regulator_get_optional() should not be used. I would just use the regulator
>>> bulk API to handle all three power supplies.
>>
>> The digital part works with AVDD turned off. So the LDO supplying AVDD should
>> be switchable to save power (&vaux3 on the GTA04 device).>
>> But not all designs can switch it off. Hence the idea to define it as an
>> /optional/ regulator. If it is not defined by DT, the driver simply assumes
>> it is always powered on.
>
> I didn't say we can't define regulator supply properties as optional in the DT
> binding. If we define them as such and any of these *-supply properties is
> missing in DT with regulator_get() the regulator core will use dummy regulator
> for that particular voltage supply. While with regulator_get_optional()
> -ENODEV is returned when the regulator cannot be found.
Ah, ok. I see.
I had thought that it is the right thing to do like devm_gpiod_get_optional().
That one it is described as:
"* This is equivalent to gpiod_get(), except that when no GPIO was assigned to
* the requested function it will return NULL. This is convenient for drivers
* that need to handle optional GPIOs."
Seems to be inconsistent definition of what "optional" means.
So we indeed should use devm_regulator_get() in this case. Thanks for pointing out!
>
>> So in summary we only need AVDD switched for the GTA04 - but it does not
>> matter if the others are optional properties. We would not use them.
>>
>> It does matter if they are mandatory because it adds DT complexity (size
>> and processing) without added function.
>
> We should not be defining DT binding only with selected use cases/board
> designs in mind. IMO all three voltage supplies should be listed in the
> binding, presumably all can be made optional, with an assumption that when
> the property is missing selected pin is hooked up to a fixed regulator.
Ok, then it should just be defined in the bindings but not used by the driver?
BR and thanks,
Nikolaus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists