From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]:60311 "EHLO mail.bootlin.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732000AbeKNBvI (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:51:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:52:27 +0100 From: Maxime Ripard To: Hans Verkuil Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Hans Verkuil , Hans Verkuil , Sakari Ailus , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Laurent Pinchart , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Andrzej Hajda , Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] media: Allwinner A10 CSI support Message-ID: <20181113155227.62jjs3mpomwgr7xd@flea> References: <20181113135259.onutfjtoi25afnfe@flea> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mey3hhnj2kgojfyq" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --mey3hhnj2kgojfyq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 03:01:45PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 11/13/18 14:52, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi Hans, > >=20 > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:30:49PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: > >> On 11/13/18 09:24, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Here is a series introducing the support for the A10 (and SoCs of the= same > >>> generation) CMOS Sensor Interface (called CSI, not to be confused with > >>> MIPI-CSI, which isn't support by that IP). > >>> > >>> That interface is pretty straightforward, but the driver has a few is= sues > >>> that I wanted to bring up: > >>> > >>> * The only board I've been testing this with has an ov5640 sensor > >>> attached, which doesn't work with the upstream driver. Copying the > >>> Allwinner init sequence works though, and this is how it has been > >>> tested. Testing with a second sensor would allow to see if it's an > >>> issue on the CSI side or the sensor side. > >>> * When starting a capture, the last buffer to capture will fail due= to > >>> double buffering being used, and we don't have a next buffer for = the > >>> last frame. I'm not sure how to deal with that though. It seems l= ike > >>> some drivers use a scratch buffer in such a case, some don't care= , so > >>> I'm not sure which solution should be preferred. > >>> * We don't have support for the ISP at the moment, but this can be = added > >>> eventually. > >>> > >>> * How to model the CSI module clock isn't really clear to me. It lo= oks > >>> like it goes through the CSI controller and then is muxed to one = of the > >>> CSI pin so that it can clock the sensor. I'm not quite sure how to > >>> model it, if it should be a clock, the CSI driver being a clock > >>> provider, or if the sensor should just use the module clock direc= tly. > >>> > >>> Here is the v4l2-compliance output: > >> > >> Test v4l2-compliance with the -s option so you test streaming as well. > >> Even better is -f where it tests streaming with all available formats. > >=20 > > I will, thanks for the tip! > >=20 > >>> v4l2-compliance SHA : 339d550e92ac15de8668f32d66d16f198137006c > >> > >> Hmm, I can't find this SHA. Was this built from the main v4l-utils rep= o? > >=20 > > It was, but using Buildroot. The version packaged in the latest stable > > version I was using (2018.08) is 1.14.2. >=20 > That's seriously out of date. That's why I show the SHA, to see if > someone is testing with a recent version of the utility, so it served > its purpose here :-) >=20 > Latest release is 1.16.2. >=20 > But when submitting new drivers you really need to build it yourself from > the master branch, that's the only way to be sure you have all the latest > compliance checks. Ack, I'll update it and test again then. > >=20 > > Looking at the Makefile from v4l2-compliance, it looks like it just > > invokes git to retrieve the git commit and uses that as the hash. In > > Buildroot's case, since buildroot will download the tarball, this will > > end up returning the SHA commit of the buildroot repo building the > > sources, not the version of the sources themselves. > >=20 > > I'm not sure how to address that properly though. Thomas, how do you > > usually deal with this? >=20 > Note that cec-compliance and cec-follower do the same, for the same > reason. >=20 > Where does the tarball come from? This is the official tarball from linuxtv: https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/package/libv4l/libv4l.mk?h=3D2018.= 08.2#n8 Maxime --=20 Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com --mey3hhnj2kgojfyq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYIAB0WIQRcEzekXsqa64kGDp7j7w1vZxhRxQUCW+rzOwAKCRDj7w1vZxhR xVxpAQCloz1Vkj2/cuDI4diTpHaBCq7l4uo9Zmc8oh9YZ+aafQEAs4eps+X9umhd CXAHluGjfnAjjJoNzgm/blLXPCkI2Qc= =0tqf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mey3hhnj2kgojfyq--