On 07/20/2017 10:37 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Am 18.07.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx>:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:53:12PM +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/18/2017 02:17 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> Am 18.07.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Hugues,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>>>>>>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
>>>>>>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
>>>>>>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
>>>>>>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
>>>>>>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
>>>>>>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
>>>>>>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
>>>>>>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
>>>>>>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
>>>>>>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it would be
>>>>>> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor. The original driver
>>>>>> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816). There are
>>>>>> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are
>>>>>> differences in the register layout. I would go for a separate driver, we
>>>>>> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about possible
>>>>>> regressions. I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able
>>>>>> to test the patch set against regressions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the end
>>>>>> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to support
>>>>> multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).
>>>>
>>>> Well,
>>>> IMHO the diffs in ov965x are smaller (but untestable because nobody seems
>>>> to have an ov9650/52 board) than within the bq27xxx chips, but I can dig out
>>>> an old pdata based separate ov9655 driver and extend that to become DT compatible.
>>>>
>>>> I had abandoned that separate approach in favour of extending the ov965x driver.
>>>>
>>>> Have to discuss with Hugues how to proceed.
>>>>
>>>> BR and thanks,
>>>> Nikolaus
>>>>
>>>
>>> As Sylwester and Hans, I'm also in flavour of a separate driver, the
>>> fact that register set seems similar but in fact is not and that we
>>> cannot test for non-regression of 9650/52 are killer for me to continue
>>> on a single driver.
>>> We can now restart from a new fresh state of the art sensor driver
>>> getting rid of legacy (pdata, old gpio, etc...).
>>
>> Agreed. I bet the result will look cleaner indeed although this wasn't one
>> of the complex drivers.
>
> I finally managed to find the bug why mplayer did select-timeout on the GTA04.
> Was a bug in pinmux setup of the GTA04 for the omap3isp.
>
> And I have resurrected our years old 3.12 camera driver, which was based on the
> MT9P031 code. It was already separate from ov9650/52.
>
> I have extended it to support DT by including some parts of Hugues' work.
>
> It still needs some cleanup and discussion but will be a simple patch (one
> for ov9655.c + Kconfig + Makefile) and one for bindings (I hope it includes
> all your comments).
>
> I will post v1 in the next days.
>
> BR,
> Nikolaus
>
Thanks Nikolaus,
I was ready to push the new version in new file ov9655.c with all
comments included, but as my version is very minimal and I suspect that
yours is more complete, let's merge things together.
Can I consider that you now take ownership of this driver upstream ?
If so I'll send to you my current patchset so you can compare,
double-check review comments and add missing support on your side
(RGB565 and VGA/QVGA resolution matter on my side).
Thanks again Nikolaus for this work,
BR,
Hugues.��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
