Re: [PATCH 18/18] ipu3: Add driver for dummy INT3472 ACPI device

[Daniel Scally]

Hi Andy

On 08/01/2021 12:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 1:56 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 30/11/2020 20:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:29PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
> ...
>
>>> It's solely Windows driver design...
>>> Luckily I found some information and can clarify above table:
>>>
>>> 0x00 Reset
>>> 0x01 Power down
>>> 0x0b Power enable
>>> 0x0c Clock enable
>>> 0x0d LED (active high)
>>>
>>> The above text perhaps should go somewhere under Documentation.
>> Coming back to this; there's a bit of an anomaly with the 0x01 Power
>> Down pin for at least one platform.  As listed above, the OV2680 on one
>> of my platforms has 3 GPIOs defined, and the table above gives them as
>> type Reset, Power down and Clock enable. I'd assumed from this table
>> that "power down" meant a powerdown GPIO (I.E. the one usually called
>> PWDNB in Omnivision datasheets and "powerdown" in drivers), but the
>> datasheet for the OV2680 doesn't list a separate reset and powerdown
>> pin, but rather a single pin that performs both functions.
> All of them are GPIOs, the question here is how they are actually
> connected on PCB level and I have no answer to that. You have to find
> schematics somewhere.

Yeah; I've been trying to get those but so far, no dice.

>
>> Am I wrong to treat that as something that ought to be mapped as a
>> powerdown GPIO to the sensors? Or do you know of any other way to
>> reconcile that discrepancy?
> The GPIOs can go directly to the sensors or be a control pin for
> separate discrete power gates.
> So, we can do one of the following:
>  a) present PD GPIO as fixed regulator;
>  b) present PD & Reset GPIOs as regulator;
>  c) provide them as is to the sensor and sensor driver must do what it
> considers right.
>
> Since we don't have schematics (yet?) and we have plenty of variations
> of sensors, I would go to c) and update the driver of the affected
> sensor as needed. Because even if you have separate discrete PD for
> one sensor on one platform there is no guarantee that it will be the
> same on another. Providing a "virtual" PD in a sensor that doesn't
> support it is the best choice I think. Let's hear what Sakari and
> other experienced camera sensor developers say.
>
> My vision is purely based on electrical engineering background,
> experience with existing (not exactly camera) sensor drivers and
> generic cases.

Alright; thanks. I'm happy with C being the answer, so unless someone
thinks differently I'll work on that basis.

>> Failing that; the only way I can think to handle this is to register
>> proxy GPIO pins assigned to the sensors as you suggested previously, and
>> have them toggle the GPIO's assigned to the INT3472 based on platform
>> specific mapping data (I.E. we register a pin called "reset", which on
>> most platforms just toggles the 0x00 pin, but on this specific platform
>> would drive both 0x00 and 0x01 together. We're already heading that way
>> for the regulator consumer supplies so it's sort of nothing new, but I'd
>> still rather not if it can be avoided.
>