On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 03:01:45PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 11/13/18 14:52, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi Hans, > > > > 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 issues > >>> 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 like > >>> 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 looks > >>> 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 directly. > >>> > >>> 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. > > > > I will, thanks for the tip! > > > >>> v4l2-compliance SHA : 339d550e92ac15de8668f32d66d16f198137006c > >> > >> Hmm, I can't find this SHA. Was this built from the main v4l-utils repo? > > > > It was, but using Buildroot. The version packaged in the latest stable > > version I was using (2018.08) is 1.14.2. > > That's seriously out of date.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 :-) > > Latest release is 1.16.2. > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > I'm not sure how to address that properly though. Thomas, how do you > > usually deal with this? > > Note that cec-compliance and cec-follower do the same, for the same > reason. > > Where does the tarball come from? This is the official tarball from linuxtv: https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/package/libv4l/libv4l.mk?h=2018.08.2#n8 Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
