вт, 16 вер. 2025 р. о 19:04 Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceres...@bootlin.com> пише:
>
> Hello Svyatoslav,
>
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 16:53:32 +0300
> Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > By default tegra_channel_get_remote_csi_subdev returns next device in pipe
> > assuming it is CSI but in case of Tegra20 and Tegra30 it can also be VIP
> > or even HOST. Lets check if returned device is actually CSI by comparing
> > subdevice operations.
>
> This is just for extra safety, or is there a real case where the lack
> of this check creates some issues in your use case?
>
> > --- a/drivers/staging/media/tegra-video/csi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/media/tegra-video/csi.c
> > @@ -445,6 +445,22 @@ static const struct v4l2_subdev_ops tegra_csi_ops = {
> > .pad = &tegra_csi_pad_ops,
> > };
> >
> > +struct v4l2_subdev *tegra_channel_get_remote_csi_subdev(struct
> > tegra_vi_channel *chan)
> > +{
> > + struct media_pad *pad;
> > + struct v4l2_subdev *subdev;
> > +
> > + pad = media_pad_remote_pad_first(&chan->pad);
> > + if (!pad)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + subdev = media_entity_to_v4l2_subdev(pad->entity);
> > + if (!subdev)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + return subdev->ops == &tegra_csi_ops ? subdev : NULL;
> > +}
>
> I tested your series on a Tegra20 with a parallel camera, so using the
> VIP for parallel input.
>
> The added check on subdev->ops breaks probing the video device:
>
> tegra-vi 54080000.vi: failed to setup channel controls: -19
> tegra-vi 54080000.vi: failed to register channel 0 notifier: -19
>
> This is because tegra20_chan_capture_kthread_start() is also calling
> tegra_channel_get_remote_csi_subdev(), but when using VIP subdev->ops
> points to tegra_vip_ops, not tegra_csi_ops.
>
Your assumption is wrong. 'tegra_channel_get_remote_csi_subdev' is
designed to get next device which is expected to be CSI, NOT VIP
(obviously, Tegra210 has no VIP). It seems that VIP implementation did
not take into account that CSI even exists. -19 errors are due to
tegra_vi_graph_notify_complete not able to get next media device in
the line. Correct approach would be to add similar helper for VIP and
check if next device is VIP. Since I have no devices with VIP support
I could not test this properly. I can add this in next iteration if
you are willing to test.
Best regards,
Svyatoslav R.
> Surely the "csi" infix in the function name here is misleading. At
> quick glance I don't see a good reason for its presence however, as the
> callers are not CSI-specific.
>
> If such quick analysis is correct, instead of this diff we should:
> * not move the function out of vi.c
> * rename the function toremove the "_csi" infix
> * if a check is really needed (see comment above), maybe extend it:
> return (subdev->ops == &tegra_csi_ops ||
> subdev->ops == &tegra_vip_ops) ? subdev : NULL;
>
> Let me know your thoughts.
>
> Best regards,
> Luca
>
> --
> Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com
