Hi Rui,
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 01:45:11PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva wrote:
> Hi,
> catching up with this thread.
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 03:08:58PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 08:34:48AM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 3:05 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's not right, csi->is_csi2 is a flag that indicates if the
> > > > current input to the CSI comes from the CSI-2 receiver.
> > > >
> > > > It looks like the i.MX6ULL is missing the MIPI CSI-2 receiver
> > > > and thus also the corresponding video mux. The WARN_ON() should
> > > > thus indeed by bypassed, but only for devices that don't have
> > > > the video mux. I wouldn't
> > >
> > > Unlike i.MX7, i.MX6UL/i.MX6ULL do not have a MIPI CSI-2 IP block.
> > >
> > > They only have a parallel CSI interface, and no video mux is
> > > present.
> > >
> > > So the csi->is_csi2 check I did seems correct, right?
> >
> > I don't think so. csi->is_csi2 tells if the currently selected input
> > of the video mux is the CSI-2 receiver, not if there's a CSI-2
> > receiver present in the device. csi->is_csi2 should of course always
> > be false when there's no CSI-2 receiver, but it can be false when a
> > CSI-2 receiver is present and the currently selected input is the
> > parallel input.
>
> Laurent is correct here. That flag indicates if CSI-2 is the selected
> input for the video mux.
>
> > > > be surprised if other adaptations would be needed in the code.
>
> I really only had the warp7 board which only had the csi2 as video mux
> input, never got the chance to test it with a parallel input. And the
> driver expects that we always have a mux. I was not even aware that an
> imx6 would have the same csi ip.
>
> but from the error outputs looks issues getting the format around the
> imx7_csi_{try, get}_fmt.
Do you still have the hardware, would you be able to test a patch series
?
> > > Yes, I found other paths that miss the csi->is_csi2 check too.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
