* [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register @ 2007-09-26 19:12 Brett Warden 2007-09-26 19:43 ` Ray Lee 2007-09-26 21:00 ` Randy Dunlap 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Brett Warden @ 2007-09-26 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: trivial Appeases the warning "parport0 (bw-qcam): use data_reverse for this!" Signed-off-by: Brett T. Warden <brett.warden@gmail.com> --- It seems to work fine with my Quickcam under 2.6.22. diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c index 7d47cbe..01e47ed 100644 --- a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c +++ b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c @@ -107,6 +107,11 @@ static inline void write_lpcontrol(struct qcam_device *q, int d) parport_write_control(q->pport, d); } +static inline void reverse_port(struct qcam_device *q) +{ + parport_data_reverse(q->pport); +} + static int qc_waithand(struct qcam_device *q, int val); static int qc_command(struct qcam_device *q, int command); static int qc_readparam(struct qcam_device *q); @@ -369,7 +374,11 @@ static void qc_reset(struct qcam_device *q) break; case QC_ANY: - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x20); + /* + * Replaced with reverse_port + * write_lpcontrol(q, 0x20); + */ + reverse_port(q); write_lpdata(q, 0x75); if (read_lpdata(q) != 0x75) { @@ -512,10 +521,12 @@ static inline int qc_readbytes(struct qcam_device *q, char buffer[]) switch (q->port_mode & QC_MODE_MASK) { case QC_BIDIR: /* Bi-directional Port */ - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x26); + reverse_port(q); + write_lpcontrol(q, 0x6); lo = (qc_waithand2(q, 1) >> 1); hi = (read_lpstatus(q) >> 3) & 0x1f; - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); + reverse_port(q); + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); lo2 = (qc_waithand2(q, 0) >> 1); hi2 = (read_lpstatus(q) >> 3) & 0x1f; switch (q->bpp) @@ -613,10 +624,13 @@ static long qc_capture(struct qcam_device * q, char __user *buf, unsigned long l if ((q->port_mode & QC_MODE_MASK) == QC_BIDIR) { - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); /* turn port around */ - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x26); + reverse_port(q); /* turn port around */ + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); + reverse_port(q); + write_lpcontrol(q, 0x6); (void) qc_waithand(q, 1); - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); + reverse_port(q); + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); (void) qc_waithand(q, 0); } -- Brett Warden ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register 2007-09-26 19:12 [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register Brett Warden @ 2007-09-26 19:43 ` Ray Lee 2007-09-26 20:06 ` Brett Warden 2007-09-26 21:00 ` Randy Dunlap 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ray Lee @ 2007-09-26 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brett Warden; +Cc: linux-kernel, trivial On 9/26/07, Brett Warden <brett.warden@gmail.com> wrote: > Appeases the warning "parport0 (bw-qcam): use data_reverse for this!" > > Signed-off-by: Brett T. Warden <brett.warden@gmail.com> > > --- > > It seems to work fine with my Quickcam under 2.6.22. > @@ -369,7 +374,11 @@ static void qc_reset(struct qcam_device *q) > break; > > case QC_ANY: > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x20); > + /* > + * Replaced with reverse_port > + * write_lpcontrol(q, 0x20); > + */ > + reverse_port(q); > write_lpdata(q, 0x75); > > if (read_lpdata(q) != 0x75) { Just as an aside, if you've tested this and it works, then there's no point to keep the write_lpcontrol even as a comment. Kill those four lines, and if someone's interested in what happened they'll just look at the file history. Ray ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register 2007-09-26 19:43 ` Ray Lee @ 2007-09-26 20:06 ` Brett Warden 2007-09-26 21:00 ` Ray Lee 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Brett Warden @ 2007-09-26 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Lee; +Cc: linux-kernel, trivial On 9/26/07, Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote: > Just as an aside, if you've tested this and it works, then there's no > point to keep the write_lpcontrol even as a comment. Kill those four > lines, and if someone's interested in what happened they'll just look > at the file history. Point taken, thanks for the feedback. --- diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c index 7d47cbe..0ba92e3 100644 --- a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c +++ b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c @@ -107,6 +107,11 @@ static inline void write_lpcontrol(struct qcam_device *q, int d) parport_write_control(q->pport, d); } +static inline void reverse_port(struct qcam_device *q) +{ + parport_data_reverse(q->pport); +} + static int qc_waithand(struct qcam_device *q, int val); static int qc_command(struct qcam_device *q, int command); static int qc_readparam(struct qcam_device *q); @@ -369,7 +374,7 @@ static void qc_reset(struct qcam_device *q) break; case QC_ANY: - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x20); + reverse_port(q); write_lpdata(q, 0x75); if (read_lpdata(q) != 0x75) { @@ -512,10 +517,12 @@ static inline int qc_readbytes(struct qcam_device *q, char buffer[]) switch (q->port_mode & QC_MODE_MASK) { case QC_BIDIR: /* Bi-directional Port */ - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x26); + reverse_port(q); + write_lpcontrol(q, 0x6); lo = (qc_waithand2(q, 1) >> 1); hi = (read_lpstatus(q) >> 3) & 0x1f; - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); + reverse_port(q); + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); lo2 = (qc_waithand2(q, 0) >> 1); hi2 = (read_lpstatus(q) >> 3) & 0x1f; switch (q->bpp) @@ -613,10 +620,13 @@ static long qc_capture(struct qcam_device * q, char __user *buf, unsigned long l if ((q->port_mode & QC_MODE_MASK) == QC_BIDIR) { - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); /* turn port around */ - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x26); + reverse_port(q); /* turn port around */ + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); + reverse_port(q); + write_lpcontrol(q, 0x6); (void) qc_waithand(q, 1); - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); + reverse_port(q); + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); (void) qc_waithand(q, 0); } -- Brett Warden ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register 2007-09-26 20:06 ` Brett Warden @ 2007-09-26 21:00 ` Ray Lee 2007-09-26 21:43 ` Brett Warden 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ray Lee @ 2007-09-26 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brett Warden; +Cc: linux-kernel, trivial On 9/26/07, Brett Warden <brett.warden@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/26/07, Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote: > > > Just as an aside, if you've tested this and it works, then there's no > > point to keep the write_lpcontrol even as a comment. Kill those four > > lines, and if someone's interested in what happened they'll just look > > at the file history. > > Point taken, thanks for the feedback. > > --- > > diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c > index 7d47cbe..0ba92e3 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c > +++ b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c > @@ -107,6 +107,11 @@ static inline void write_lpcontrol(struct > qcam_device *q, int d) > parport_write_control(q->pport, d); > } > > +static inline void reverse_port(struct qcam_device *q) > +{ > + parport_data_reverse(q->pport); > +} > + > static int qc_waithand(struct qcam_device *q, int val); > static int qc_command(struct qcam_device *q, int command); > static int qc_readparam(struct qcam_device *q); > @@ -369,7 +374,7 @@ static void qc_reset(struct qcam_device *q) > break; > > case QC_ANY: > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x20); > + reverse_port(q); > write_lpdata(q, 0x75); > > if (read_lpdata(q) != 0x75) { > @@ -512,10 +517,12 @@ static inline int qc_readbytes(struct > qcam_device *q, char buffer[]) > switch (q->port_mode & QC_MODE_MASK) > { > case QC_BIDIR: /* Bi-directional Port */ > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x26); > + reverse_port(q); > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0x6); > lo = (qc_waithand2(q, 1) >> 1); > hi = (read_lpstatus(q) >> 3) & 0x1f; > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); > + reverse_port(q); > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); > lo2 = (qc_waithand2(q, 0) >> 1); > hi2 = (read_lpstatus(q) >> 3) & 0x1f; > switch (q->bpp) > @@ -613,10 +620,13 @@ static long qc_capture(struct qcam_device * q, > char __user *buf, unsigned long l > > if ((q->port_mode & QC_MODE_MASK) == QC_BIDIR) > { > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); /* turn port around */ > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x26); > + reverse_port(q); /* turn port around */ > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); > + reverse_port(q); > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0x6); > (void) qc_waithand(q, 1); > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); > + reverse_port(q); > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); > (void) qc_waithand(q, 0); > } Better, and do you have time for two (possibly stupid) questions? In each of the last cases it looks like the transformation is from a write_lpcontrol -> reverse_port and a write_lpcontrol (old address - 0x20). Except the first one, which merely has the reverse_port. One would think that there should be a write_lpcontrol(q, 0x0); after that one. Also, is the reverse port sticky, or does it only apply to the next write? If it's only the next, then maybe a different name would be better. If it's sticky, then I think the code is wrong... Ray ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register 2007-09-26 21:00 ` Ray Lee @ 2007-09-26 21:43 ` Brett Warden 2007-09-27 19:28 ` Brett Warden 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Brett Warden @ 2007-09-26 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Lee, Randy Dunlap; +Cc: linux-kernel, trivial On 9/26/07, Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote: > On 9/26/07, Brett Warden <brett.warden@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/26/07, Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote: > > > > > Just as an aside, if you've tested this and it works, then there's no > > > point to keep the write_lpcontrol even as a comment. Kill those four > > > lines, and if someone's interested in what happened they'll just look > > > at the file history. > > > > Point taken, thanks for the feedback. > > > > --- > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c > > index 7d47cbe..0ba92e3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c > > @@ -107,6 +107,11 @@ static inline void write_lpcontrol(struct > > qcam_device *q, int d) > > parport_write_control(q->pport, d); > > } > > > > +static inline void reverse_port(struct qcam_device *q) > > +{ > > + parport_data_reverse(q->pport); > > +} > > + > > static int qc_waithand(struct qcam_device *q, int val); > > static int qc_command(struct qcam_device *q, int command); > > static int qc_readparam(struct qcam_device *q); > > @@ -369,7 +374,7 @@ static void qc_reset(struct qcam_device *q) > > break; > > > > case QC_ANY: > > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x20); > > + reverse_port(q); > > write_lpdata(q, 0x75); > > > > if (read_lpdata(q) != 0x75) { > > @@ -512,10 +517,12 @@ static inline int qc_readbytes(struct > > qcam_device *q, char buffer[]) > > switch (q->port_mode & QC_MODE_MASK) > > { > > case QC_BIDIR: /* Bi-directional Port */ > > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x26); > > + reverse_port(q); > > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0x6); > > lo = (qc_waithand2(q, 1) >> 1); > > hi = (read_lpstatus(q) >> 3) & 0x1f; > > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); > > + reverse_port(q); > > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); > > lo2 = (qc_waithand2(q, 0) >> 1); > > hi2 = (read_lpstatus(q) >> 3) & 0x1f; > > switch (q->bpp) > > @@ -613,10 +620,13 @@ static long qc_capture(struct qcam_device * q, > > char __user *buf, unsigned long l > > > > if ((q->port_mode & QC_MODE_MASK) == QC_BIDIR) > > { > > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); /* turn port around */ > > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x26); > > + reverse_port(q); /* turn port around */ > > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); > > + reverse_port(q); > > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0x6); > > (void) qc_waithand(q, 1); > > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); > > + reverse_port(q); > > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); > > (void) qc_waithand(q, 0); > > } > > Better, and do you have time for two (possibly stupid) questions? In > each of the last cases it looks like the transformation is from a > write_lpcontrol -> reverse_port and a write_lpcontrol (old address - > 0x20). Except the first one, which merely has the reverse_port. One > would think that there should be a write_lpcontrol(q, 0x0); after that > one. > > Also, is the reverse port sticky, or does it only apply to the next > write? If it's only the next, then maybe a different name would be > better. If it's sticky, then I think the code is wrong... In response to Randy's and your questions, here's what I understand: The error message comes from parport_pc_write_control in include/linux/parport_pc.h, which is called by bw-qcam's write_lpcontrol(): static __inline__ void parport_pc_write_control (struct parport *p, unsigned char d) { const unsigned char wm = (PARPORT_CONTROL_STROBE | PARPORT_CONTROL_AUTOFD | PARPORT_CONTROL_INIT | PARPORT_CONTROL_SELECT); /* Take this out when drivers have adapted to newer interface. */ if (d & 0x20) { printk (KERN_DEBUG "%s (%s): use data_reverse for this!\n", p->name, p->cad->name); parport_pc_data_reverse (p); } __parport_pc_frob_control (p, wm, d & wm); } The mask wm works out to 0x0f, so first it calls parport_pc_data_reverse(), then masks off the high nibble with the reverse flag and makes the regular call. Looking at that more carefully, I'm not sure whether I need to add the write_lpcontrol(q, 0) after the first call. Other than that, I believe I'm following the same procedure. As for whether data_reverse is sticky, I don't know... I'll see what I can find out. -- Brett Warden ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register 2007-09-26 21:43 ` Brett Warden @ 2007-09-27 19:28 ` Brett Warden 2007-09-27 21:29 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Brett Warden @ 2007-09-27 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Lee, Randy Dunlap; +Cc: linux-kernel, trivial Fixes use of parport_write_control() to match the newer interface that requires explicit parport_data_reverse() and parport_data_forward() calls. This eliminates the following error message and restores the original intended behavior: parport0 (bw-qcam): use data_reverse for this! Also increases threshold in qc_detect() from 300 to 400, as my camera often results in a count of approx 330. Added a kernel error message to indicate detection failure. Signed-off-by: Brett T. Warden <brett.warden@gmail.com> --- Thanks Ray and Randy for your comments, and for pointing out that I needed to reset the port to forward mode! diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c index 7d47cbe..961e377 100644 --- a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c +++ b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c @@ -104,6 +104,17 @@ static inline void write_lpdata(struct qcam_device *q, int d) static inline void write_lpcontrol(struct qcam_device *q, int d) { + if(0x20 & d) { + /* Set bidirectional mode to reverse (data in) */ + parport_data_reverse(q->pport); + } else { + /* Set bidirectional mode to forward (data out) */ + parport_data_forward(q->pport); + } + + /* Now issue the regular port command, but strip out the + * direction flag */ + d &= ~0x20; parport_write_control(q->pport, d); } @@ -344,10 +355,13 @@ static int qc_detect(struct qcam_device *q) /* Be (even more) liberal in what you accept... */ /* if (count > 30 && count < 200) */ - if (count > 20 && count < 300) + if (count > 20 && count < 400) + { return 1; /* found */ - else + } else { + printk(KERN_ERR "No Quickcam found on port %s\n", q->pport->name); return 0; /* not found */ + } } -- Brett Warden ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register 2007-09-27 19:28 ` Brett Warden @ 2007-09-27 21:29 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2007-09-27 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brett Warden; +Cc: Ray Lee, Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel, trivial On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:28:31 -0700 "Brett Warden" <brett.warden@gmail.com> wrote: > Fixes use of parport_write_control() to match the newer interface that > requires explicit parport_data_reverse() and parport_data_forward() > calls. This eliminates the following error message and restores the > original intended behavior: Looks good > parport0 (bw-qcam): use data_reverse for this! > > Also increases threshold in qc_detect() from 300 to 400, as my camera > often results in a count of approx 330. Added a kernel error message > to indicate detection failure. Likewise > Signed-off-by: Brett T. Warden <brett.warden@gmail.com> Acked-by: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register 2007-09-26 19:12 [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register Brett Warden 2007-09-26 19:43 ` Ray Lee @ 2007-09-26 21:00 ` Randy Dunlap 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Randy Dunlap @ 2007-09-26 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brett Warden; +Cc: linux-kernel, trivial On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:12:50 -0700 Brett Warden wrote: > Appeases the warning "parport0 (bw-qcam): use data_reverse for this!" > > Signed-off-by: Brett T. Warden <brett.warden@gmail.com> > Where does the warning come from? (what software produces it?) > --- > > It seems to work fine with my Quickcam under 2.6.22. > > diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c > index 7d47cbe..01e47ed 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c > +++ b/drivers/media/video/bw-qcam.c > @@ -107,6 +107,11 @@ static inline void write_lpcontrol(struct > qcam_device *q, int d) > parport_write_control(q->pport, d); > } > > +static inline void reverse_port(struct qcam_device *q) > +{ > + parport_data_reverse(q->pport); > +} > + > static int qc_waithand(struct qcam_device *q, int val); > static int qc_command(struct qcam_device *q, int command); > static int qc_readparam(struct qcam_device *q); > @@ -369,7 +374,11 @@ static void qc_reset(struct qcam_device *q) > break; > > case QC_ANY: > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x20); > + /* > + * Replaced with reverse_port > + * write_lpcontrol(q, 0x20); > + */ > + reverse_port(q); > write_lpdata(q, 0x75); > > if (read_lpdata(q) != 0x75) { > @@ -512,10 +521,12 @@ static inline int qc_readbytes(struct > qcam_device *q, char buffer[]) > switch (q->port_mode & QC_MODE_MASK) > { > case QC_BIDIR: /* Bi-directional Port */ > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x26); > + reverse_port(q); > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0x6); > lo = (qc_waithand2(q, 1) >> 1); > hi = (read_lpstatus(q) >> 3) & 0x1f; > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); > + reverse_port(q); > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); > lo2 = (qc_waithand2(q, 0) >> 1); > hi2 = (read_lpstatus(q) >> 3) & 0x1f; > switch (q->bpp) > @@ -613,10 +624,13 @@ static long qc_capture(struct qcam_device * q, > char __user *buf, unsigned long l > > if ((q->port_mode & QC_MODE_MASK) == QC_BIDIR) > { > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); /* turn port around */ > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x26); > + reverse_port(q); /* turn port around */ > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); > + reverse_port(q); > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0x6); > (void) qc_waithand(q, 1); > - write_lpcontrol(q, 0x2e); > + reverse_port(q); > + write_lpcontrol(q, 0xe); > (void) qc_waithand(q, 0); > } > > > > -- --- ~Randy Phaedrus says that Quality is about caring. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-09-27 21:25 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2007-09-26 19:12 [PATCH] bw-qcam: use data_reverse instead of manually poking the control register Brett Warden 2007-09-26 19:43 ` Ray Lee 2007-09-26 20:06 ` Brett Warden 2007-09-26 21:00 ` Ray Lee 2007-09-26 21:43 ` Brett Warden 2007-09-27 19:28 ` Brett Warden 2007-09-27 21:29 ` Alan Cox 2007-09-26 21:00 ` Randy Dunlap
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®