On 11/13/18 16:52, Maxime Ripard wrote: > 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 That's seriously out of date.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 Weird, if I build directly from that tarball, then v4l2-compliance should say: v4l2-compliance SHA: not available, 64 bits So that's what I expect to see from buildroot as well. Regards, Hans
