On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 04:58:25PM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 at 14:21, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ricardo,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 02:09:28PM +0200, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > > 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);
> >
> > Maybe:
> >
> > acpi_handle_warn(acpi_device_handle(adev), ...);
> >
> > ?
> >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> >
> > Looks good to me. Maybe something similar for orientation?
>
> Do you mean using ssdb also for orientation or using acpi_handle_warn?
>
>
> I cannot find anything related to orientation for SSDB
> https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/blob/main/src/drivers/intel/mipi_camera/chip.h#L150
>
> Am I looking in the right place?
Ah, maybe SSDB has only rotation? At least it's less duplicated information
in different format, so that's a good thing. So this just applies to
rotation, it seems.
--
Sakari Ailus
