On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 at 11:22, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
So something like this:?
static u32 ipu_bridge_parse_rotation(struct acpi_device *adev,
struct ipu_sensor_ssdb *ssdb,
struct
v4l2_fwnode_device_properties *props)
{
if (props->rotation != V4L2_FWNODE_PROPERTY_UNSET)
return props->rotation;
switch (ssdb->degree) {
case IPU_SENSOR_ROTATION_NORMAL:
return 0;
case IPU_SENSOR_ROTATION_INVERTED:
return 180;
}
dev_warn(ADEV_DEV(adev),
"Unknown rotation %d. Assume 0 degree rotation\n",
ssdb->degree);
return 0;
}
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Sakari Ailus
--
Ricardo Ribalda
