Message-ID: <20200414205655.GO19819@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 23:56:55 +0300
From:   Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] media: i2c: ov5645: Drop reading clock-frequency
 dt-property

Hi Sakari,

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 11:55:54PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 06:14:01PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 03:21:06PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 09:22:41AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:32:34PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 07:51:08PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 05:42:38PM +0100, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> >>>>>> Modes in the driver are based on xvclk frequency fixed to 24MHz, but where
> >>>>>> as the OV5645 sensor can support the xvclk frequency ranging from 6MHz to
> >>>>>> 24MHz. So instead making clock-frequency as dt-property just let the
> >>>>>> driver enforce the required clock frequency.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Even if some current systems where the driver is used are using 24 MHz
> >>>>> clock, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be systems using another frequency
> >>>>> that the driver does not support right now.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The driver really should not set the frequency unless it gets it from DT,
> >>>>> but I think the preferred means is to use assigned-clock-rates instead, and
> >>>>> not to involve the driver with setting the frequency.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Otherwise we'll make it impossible to support other frequencies, at least
> >>>>> without more or less random defaults.
> >>>> 
> >>>> We're running in circles here.
> >>>> 
> >>>> As the driver only supports 24MHz at the moment, the frequency should be
> >>>> set by the driver, as it's a driver limitation. We can then work on
> >>>> supporting additional frequencies, which will require DT to provide a
> >>>> list of supported frequencies for the system, but that can be done on
> >>>> top.
> >>> 
> >>> I guess it would be possible to use different external clock frequencies on
> >>> a sensor in a given system but that seems to be a bit far fetched, to the
> >>> extent I've never seen anyone doing that in practice.
> >>> 
> >>> Originally, the driver set the frequency based on the clock-frequency
> >>> property. If we're removing that but use a fixed frequency instead, then
> >>> how is that going to work going forward when someone adds support for other
> >>> frequencies in the driver and has a system requiring that, while there are
> >>> some other platforms relying on the driver setting a particular frequency?
> >> 
> >> The standard property for this is link-frequencies, not clock-frequency.
> >> Deprecating clock-frequency now paves the way to use the standard
> >> property later when/if someone implements support for additional
> >> frequencies.
> > 
> > The external clock frequency and link frequency are different indeed, but
> > they are related. The link frequency has been selected in a way that it is
> > possible to generate that exact frequency using the chosen external clock
> > frequency. If you change the external clock frequency, chances are good
> > there is no PLL configuration to generate that link frequency.
> 
> But aren't we supposed to pick the clock frequency based on the link
> frequency specified in DT ?
> 
> In any case, this policy needs to be carefully documented.

And by this I mean in a central place, not leaving it to individual
bindings.

Maxime, we've previously discussed this issue privately on IRC, what's
your opinion ?

> >>> Although, if you're saying that this driver only needs to work with DT that
> >>> comes with the kernel and you don't care about DT binary compatibility,
> >>> this would be fine.
> >> 
> >> I believe this series to not break backward compatibility, as the driver
> >> only works with a 24MHz clock, so I expect all DTs to specify that.
> > 
> > What you're still doing here is defining the DT bindings based on the
> > current driver implementation, not the device properties.
> 
> Quite the contrary, the device doesn't require any particular input
> clock frequency, so we're removing that from DT :-) Specifying the clock
> frequency in DT is in my opinion a manual workaround for not computing
> it at runtime based on the desired link frequency, while the link
> frequency is a property of the system as it specifies the range of link
> frequencies that are safe to use from an EMC point of view.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Powered by blists - more mailing lists