Hi Ricardo, On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 11:16:25AM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > Hi Sakari > > Thanks for your review > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 23:45, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Ricardo, > > > > On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 05:52:58PM +0000, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > > > The v4l2_fwnode_device_properties contains information about the > > > rotation. Use it if the ssdb data is inconclusive. > > > > As SSDB and _PLD provide the same information, are they always aligned? Do > > you have any experience on how is this actually in firmware? > > Not really, in ChromeOS we are pretty lucky to control the firmware. > > @HdG Do you have some experience/opinion here? > > > > > _PLD is standardised so it would seem reasonable to stick to that -- if it > > exists. Another approach could be to pick the one that doesn't translate to > > a sane default (0°). > > I'd rather stick to the current prioritization unless there is a > strong argument against it. Otherwise there is a chance that we will > have regressions (outside CrOS) My point was rather there are no such rules currently for rotation: only SSDB was being used by the IPU bridge to obtain the rotation value, similarly only _PLD is consulted when it comes to orientation. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
