Message-ID: <1940300.v7qj8XpMF4@avalon>
Date:   Sat, 23 Dec 2017 13:39:41 +0200
From:   Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To:     jacopo mondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>
Cc:     Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org>, magnus.damm@...il.com,
        geert@...der.be, mchehab@...nel.org, hverkuil@...all.nl,
        linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/10] v4l: platform: Add Renesas CEU driver

Hi Jacopo,

On Friday, 22 December 2017 16:40:16 EET jacopo mondi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 02:03:41PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 December 2017 18:27:02 EET jacopo mondi wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:28:43PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 18 December 2017 14:25:12 EET jacopo mondi wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 06:15:23PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> 
> >> [snip]
> >> 
> >>>>>> +/**
> >>>>>> + * ceu_soft_reset() - Software reset the CEU interface
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> +static int ceu_soft_reset(struct ceu_device *ceudev)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> +	unsigned int reset_done;
> >>>>>> +	unsigned int i;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +	ceu_write(ceudev, CEU_CAPSR, CEU_CAPSR_CPKIL);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +	reset_done = 0;
> >>>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < 1000 && !reset_done; i++) {
> >>>>>> +		udelay(1);
> >>>>>> +		if (!(ceu_read(ceudev, CEU_CSTSR) & CEU_CSTRST_CPTON))
> >>>>>> +			reset_done++;
> >>>>>> +	}
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> How many iterations does this typically require ? Wouldn't a sleep
> >>>>> be better than a delay ? As far as I can tell the ceu_soft_reset()
> >>>>> function is only called with interrupts disabled (in interrupt
> >>>>> context) from ceu_capture() in an error path, and that code should be
> >>>>> reworked to make it possible to sleep if a reset takes too long.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The HW manual does not provide any indication about absolute timings.
> >>>> I can empirically try and see, but that would just be a hint.
> >>> 
> >>> That's why I asked how many iterations it typically takes :-) A hint
> >>> is enough to start with, preferably on both SH and ARM SoCs.
> >> 
> >> I've seen only 0s when printing out how many cycles it takes to clear
> >> both registers. This means 1usec is enough, therefore I would keep using
> >> udelay here. Also, I would reduce the attempts to 100 here (or even
> >> 10), as if a single one is typically enough, 1000 is definitely an
> >> overkill.
> > 
> > I'd go for 10. This being said, please make sure you run tests where the
> > reset is performed during capture in the middle of a frame, to see if it
> > changes the number of iterations.
> 
> The only way I can think to do this is to stream_on then immediately
> stream_off before we get the frame and thus casue the interface reset.
> Any other idea?

I think we should test reset of the state machine both during vertical 
blanking when it's waiting for a frame, and in the middle of the frame. The 
former should be easy to test by stopping the stream immediately before the 
sensor starts outputting a frame (if you can disable the HSYNC and/or VSYNC 
outputs of the sensor it would ensure that the CEU doesn't start receiving 
data, that could be useful). The latter shouldn't be difficult to test with an 
appropriate delay from the frame end interrupt to the stream stop.

> [snip]
> 
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +/**
> >>>>>> + * ceu_capture() - Trigger start of a capture sequence
> >>>>>> + *
> >>>>>> + * Return value doesn't reflect the success/failure to queue the
> >>>>>> new buffer,
> >>>>>> + * but rather the status of the previous capture.
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> +static int ceu_capture(struct ceu_device *ceudev)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> +	struct v4l2_pix_format_mplane *pix = &ceudev->v4l2_pix;
> >>>>>> +	dma_addr_t phys_addr_top;
> >>>>>> +	u32 status;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +	/* Clean interrupt status and re-enable interrupts */
> >>>>>> +	status = ceu_read(ceudev, CEU_CETCR);
> >>>>>> +	ceu_write(ceudev, CEU_CEIER,
> >>>>>> +		  ceu_read(ceudev, CEU_CEIER) & ~CEU_CEIER_MASK);
> >>>>>> +	ceu_write(ceudev, CEU_CETCR, ~status & CEU_CETCR_MAGIC);
> >>>>>> +	ceu_write(ceudev, CEU_CEIER, CEU_CEIER_MASK);
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I wonder why there's a need to disable and reenable interrupts here.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The original driver clearly said "The hardware is -very- picky about
> >>>> this sequence" and I got scared and nerver touched this.
> >>> 
> >>> How about experimenting to see how the hardware reacts ?
> >> 
> >> Turns out this was not needed at all, both on RZ and SH4. I captured
> >> several images without any issues in both platforms just clearing the
> >> interrupt state without disabling interrutps.
> > 
> > I wonder whether it could cause an issue when interrupts are raised by the
> > hardware at the same time they are cleared by the driver. That's hard to
> > test though.
> > 
> > What happens when an interrupt source is masked by the CEIER register, is
> > it still reported by the status CETCR register (obviously without raising
> > an interrupt to the CPU), or does it not get flagged at all ?
> 
> They get flagged, yes, and right now I'm clearing all of them at the
> beginning of IRQ handler writing ~CEU_CETR_ALL_INT to CETCR.

OK. If they didn't get flagged it would mean that disabling interrupts while 
clearing the flags could have an influence on what interrupts are flagged. As 
they get flagged when disabled it should make no difference, so I'm not 
concerned with this change. You might however want to keep a local patch in 
one of your trees that disable interrupts to clear the status register, just 
to remember that it could be a potential issue if we later receive a bug 
report that could be related to interrupt handling. Or your memory is better 
than mine and there's no need for a reminder :-)

> >>> Also, I very much dislike the CEU_CETRC_MAGIC mask, but again the old
> >>>> driver said "Acknoledge magical interrupt sources" and I was afraid
> >>>> to change it (I can rename it though, to something lioke
> >>>> CEU_CETCR_ALL_INT because that's what it is, a mask with all available
> >>>> interrupt source enabled).
> >>> 
> >>> I think renaming it is a good idea. Additionally, regardless of
> >>> whether there is any hidden interrupt source, the datasheet mentions for
> >>> all reserved bits that "The write  value  should always  be 0". They
> >>> should read as 0, but masking them would be an additional safeguard.
> >> 
> >> The HW manual is a bit confused (and confusing) on this point.
> >> Yes, there is the statement you have cited here, but there's also
> >> "to clear only the CPE bit to 0, write H'FFFF FFFE to CETCR" a few
> >> lines above, which clearly contradicts the "write 0 to reserved bits"
> >> thing.
> >> 
> >> In practice, I'm now writing to 0 only bits to be cleared, and thus
> >> writing 1s to everything else, reserved included. I haven't seen any
> >> issue both on RZ and SH4 platforms.
> 
> And this is the above "wirting ~CEU_CETR_ALL_INT" to CETCR" I
> mentioned above.
> 
> >>> Also not that on the RZ/A1 platform bit 22 is documented as reserved,
> >>> so you might want to compute the mask based on the CEU model.
> >> 
> >> While I can use the .data pointer of 'of_device_id' for OF based
> >> devices (RZ) to store the opportune IRQ mask, I'm not sure how to
> >> do that for platform devices. Can I assume (platform data == SH) in
> >> you opinion?
> > 
> > Yes you can.
> 
> Awesome!

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Powered by blists - more mailing lists