Hi Ricardo,
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 11:04:25AM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> Hi Sakari
>
> Thanks for your review!
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 at 09:06, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ricardo,
> >
> > Thanks for the update.
> >
> > On 6/5/25 20:52, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > > Currently v4l2_fwnode_device_parse() obtains the orientation and
> > > rotation via fwnode properties.
> > >
> > > Extend the function to support as well ACPI devices with _PLD info.
> > >
> > > We give a higher priority to fwnode, because it might contain quirks
> > > injected via swnodes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c
> > > index cb153ce42c45d69600a3ec4e59a5584d7e791a2a..379290ab3cfde74c8f663d61837a9a95011b5ae0 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c
> > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > > * Author: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx>
> > > */
> > > #include <linux/acpi.h>
> > > +#include <acpi/acpi_bus.h>
> > > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > #include <linux/mm.h>
> > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > @@ -807,16 +808,65 @@ int v4l2_fwnode_connector_add_link(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_fwnode_connector_add_link);
> > >
> > > -int v4l2_fwnode_device_parse(struct device *dev,
> > > - struct v4l2_fwnode_device_properties *props)
> > > +static int v4l2_fwnode_device_parse_acpi(struct device *dev,
> > > + struct v4l2_fwnode_device_properties *props)
> > > +{
> > > + struct acpi_pld_info *pld;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > + if (!is_acpi_device_node(dev_fwnode(dev)))
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + if (!acpi_get_physical_device_location(ACPI_HANDLE(dev), &pld)) {
> > > + dev_dbg(dev, "acpi _PLD call failed\n");
> >
> > I'd do:
> >
> > acpi_handle_debug(ACPI_HANDLE(dev), "cannot obtain _PLD\n");
> ack
> >
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (props->orientation != V4L2_FWNODE_PROPERTY_UNSET) {
> > > + switch (pld->panel) {
> > > + case ACPI_PLD_PANEL_FRONT:
> > > + props->orientation = V4L2_FWNODE_ORIENTATION_FRONT;
> > > + break;
> > > + case ACPI_PLD_PANEL_BACK:
> > > + props->orientation = V4L2_FWNODE_ORIENTATION_BACK;
> > > + break;
> > > + case ACPI_PLD_PANEL_TOP:
> > > + case ACPI_PLD_PANEL_LEFT:
> > > + case ACPI_PLD_PANEL_RIGHT:
> > > + case ACPI_PLD_PANEL_UNKNOWN:
> > > + props->orientation = V4L2_FWNODE_ORIENTATION_EXTERNAL;
> > > + break;
> > > + default:
> > > + dev_dbg(dev, "Unknown _PLD panel val %d\n", pld->panel);
> >
> > Similarly:
> >
> > acpi_handle_debug(ACPI_HANDLE(dev), "invalid panel %u in _PLD\n",
> > pld->panel);
> >
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> >
> > Should this be an error or should we simply ignore it here (and maybe
> > use acpi_handle_warn())?
>
> v4l2_fwnode_device_parse_of() returns -EINVAL for a similar situation,
> so I think it is better to be consistent and return -EINVAL here.
> But I agree that acpi_handle_warn() better suits here than _dbg.
Ack.
>
> >
> > > + goto done;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (props->rotation != V4L2_FWNODE_PROPERTY_UNSET) {
> > > + switch (pld->rotation) {
> > > + case 0 ... 7:
> > > + props->rotation = pld->rotation * 45;
> > > + break;
> > > + default:
> > > + dev_dbg(dev, "Unknown _PLD rotation val %d\n", pld->panel);
> >
> > acpi_handle_debug(ACPI_HANDLE(dev), "invalid rotation %u in _PLD\n",
> > pld->rotation);
> >
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + goto done;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > +done:
> > > + ACPI_FREE(pld);
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int v4l2_fwnode_device_parse_dt(struct device *dev,
> >
> > I'd call this v4l2_fwnode_device_parse_of() as we're parsing OF nodes
> > and properties here.
> ack
> >
> > > + struct v4l2_fwnode_device_properties *props)
> > > {
> > > struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = dev_fwnode(dev);
> > > u32 val;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - memset(props, 0, sizeof(*props));
> > > -
> > > - props->orientation = V4L2_FWNODE_PROPERTY_UNSET;
> > > ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "orientation", &val);
> > > if (!ret) {
> > > switch (val) {
> > > @@ -833,7 +883,6 @@ int v4l2_fwnode_device_parse(struct device *dev,
> > > dev_dbg(dev, "device orientation: %u\n", val);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - props->rotation = V4L2_FWNODE_PROPERTY_UNSET;
> > > ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "rotation", &val);
> > > if (!ret) {
> > > if (val >= 360) {
> > > @@ -847,6 +896,30 @@ int v4l2_fwnode_device_parse(struct device *dev,
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +int v4l2_fwnode_device_parse(struct device *dev,
> > > + struct v4l2_fwnode_device_properties *props)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + memset(props, 0, sizeof(*props));
> > > +
> > > + props->orientation = V4L2_FWNODE_PROPERTY_UNSET;
> > > + props->rotation = V4L2_FWNODE_PROPERTY_UNSET;
> > > +
> > > + /* Start by looking into swnodes and dt. */
s/dt/DT/
> > > + ret = v4l2_fwnode_device_parse_dt(dev, props);
^
Extra space.
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + /* Orientation and rotation found!, we are ready. */
> > > + if (props->orientation != V4L2_FWNODE_PROPERTY_UNSET &&
> > > + props->rotation != V4L2_FWNODE_PROPERTY_UNSET)
> > > + return 0;
> >
> > I think you can remove this check without affecting the functionality.
> I want to avoid calling an acpi method unless it is strictly
> necessary. The check is not that ugly... if it is ok with you i'd
> rather keep it.
The function is already checking the node is an ACPI node and returns 0
otherwise. The above is simply redundant.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + /* Let's check the acpi table. */
s/acpi/ACPI/
> > > + return v4l2_fwnode_device_parse_acpi(dev, props);
> > > +}
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_fwnode_device_parse);
> > >
> > > /*
> > >
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
