Hi Bingbu, Laurent, On 23/09/2021 12:49, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Bingbu, > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:29:33AM +0000, Cao, Bingbu wrote: >> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 5:46 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:06:32AM +0000, Cao, Bingbu wrote: >>>> Jean-Michel, >>>> >>>> Firstly, the .height_per_slice could be 0 if your .grid.width larger >>>> than 32. >>> >>> Which .height_per_slice are you talking about ? A field of that name >>> exists in both ipu3_uapi_acc_param.awb.config.grid and struct >>> ipu3_uapi_grid_config and imgu_abi_awb_config.stripes.grid. >>> >>> They are both computed by the driver, in imgu_css_cfg_acc(). The former >>> is set to >>> >>> acc->awb.config.grid.height_per_slice = >>> IMGU_ABI_AWB_MAX_CELLS_PER_SET / acc->awb.config.grid.width, >>> >>> IMGU_ABI_AWB_MAX_CELLS_PER_SET is equal to 160, so it can only be 0 if >>> grid.width > 160, which is invalid. >> >> For awb_fr and af, it could be 0 if the .config.grid_cfg.width > 32. > > Indeed, my bad. I was focussing on the AWB statistics. > > What are the implications of a height_per_slice value of 0 ? > > While we are on this topic, what is a "slice" ? Does it matter for the > user, as in does it have an impact on the statistics values, or on how > they're arranged in memory, or is it an implementation detail of the > firmware that has no consequence on what can be seen by the user ? (The > "user" here is the code that reads the statistics in userspace). > >>>> From your configuration, looks like something wrong in the stripe >>>> configuration cause not entering the 2 stripes branch. >>> >>> Why is that ? Isn't it valid for a grid configuration to use a single >>> stripe, if the image is small enough, or if the grid only covers the left >>> part of the image ? >>> >>>> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:54 PM, Jean-Michel Hautbois wrote: >>>>> On 22/09/2021 06:33, Cao, Bingbu wrote: >>>>>> Jean-Michel, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for you patch. >>>>>> What is the value of .config.grid_cfg.width for your low resolutions? >>>>> >>>>> I don't know if a 1920x1280 output is a low resolution, but the grid >>>>> is configured as: >>>>> - grid_cfg.width = 79 >>>>> - grid_cfg.height = 24 >>>>> - grid_cfg.block_width_log2 = 4 >>>>> - grid_cfg.block_height_log2 = 6 >>>>> >>>>> Here is a full debug output of the AWB part in imgu_css_cfg_acc(): >>>>> >>>>> acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[0].width: 1280 >>>>> acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[0].height: 1536 >>>>> acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[0].offset: 0 >>>>> acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[0].width: 1280 >>>>> acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[0].height: 1536 >>>>> acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[0].offset: 0 >>>>> acc->acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.width: 79 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.block_width_log2: 4 >>>>> acc->acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.height: 24 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.block_height_log2: 6 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.x_start: 0 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.x_end: 1263 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.y_start: 0 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.y_end: 1535 >>>>> acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[1].width: 1280 >>>>> acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[1].height: 1536 >>>>> acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[1].offset: 1024 >>>>> acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[1].width: 1280 >>>>> acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[1].height: 1536 >>>>> acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[1].offset: 1024 >>>>> acc->acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.width: 79 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.block_width_log2: 4 >>>>> acc->acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.height: 24 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.block_height_log2: 6 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.x_start: 0 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.x_end: 1263 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.y_start: 0 >>>>> acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.y_end: 1535 >> >> Are these dumps from 1920x1280 output? > > Jean-Michel, could you comment on this ? > > Note that the grid is configured with 79 cells of 16 pixels, covering > 1264 pixels horizontally. That's not the full image for a 1920 pixels > output, and will probably not be done in practice, but there's nothing > preventing the grid from covering part of the image only. > It is a dump for a 1920x1280 output. If it can help, the configuration set in ImgU is: IF: 2592x1728 BDS: 2304x1536 GDC: 1920x1280 >>>>> This has been outputted with: https://paste.debian.net/1212791/ >>>>> >>>>> The examples I gave before were 1280x720 output and not 1920x1080, >>>>> here are they: >>>>> - without the patch: https://pasteboard.co/hHo4QkVUSk8e.png >>>>> - with the patch: https://pasteboard.co/YUGUvS5tD0bo.png >>>>> >>>>> As you can see we have the same behaviour. >>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:34 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 03:04:37PM +0200, Jean-Michel Hautbois wrote: >>>>>>>> On 21/09/2021 13:07, Sakari Ailus wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 07:25:04PM +0200, Jean-Michel Hautbois wrote: >>>>>>>>>> While playing with low resolutions for the grid, it appeared >>>>>>>>>> that height_per_slice is not initialised if we are not using >>>>>>>>>> both stripes for the calculations. This pattern occurs three times: >>>>>>>>>> - for the awb_fr processing block >>>>>>>>>> - for the af processing block >>>>>>>>>> - for the awb processing block >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The idea of this small portion of code is to reduce complexity >>>>>>>>>> in loading the statistics, it could be done also when only one >>>>>>>>>> stripe is used. Fix it by getting this initialisation code >>>>>>>>>> outside of the >>>>>>>>>> else() test case. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Michel Hautbois <jeanmichel.hautbois@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css-params.c | 44 >>>>> ++++++++++---------- >>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css-params.c >>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css-params.c >>>>>>>>>> index e9d6bd9e9332..05da7dbdca78 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css-params.c >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css-params.c >>>>>>>>>> @@ -2428,16 +2428,16 @@ int imgu_css_cfg_acc(struct imgu_css *css, unsigned int pipe, >>>>>>>>>> acc->awb_fr.stripes[1].grid_cfg.width, >>>>>>>>>> b_w_log2); >>>>>>>>>> acc->awb_fr.stripes[1].grid_cfg.x_end = end; >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> - /* >>>>>>>>>> - * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading >>>>>>>>>> - * statistics fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both >>>>>>>>>> - * stripes. >>>>>>>>>> - */ >>>>>>>>>> - for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++) >>>>>>>>>> - acc->awb_fr.stripes[i].grid_cfg.height_per_slice = 1; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> + /* >>>>>>>>>> + * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading >>>>>>>>>> + * statistics fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both >>>>>>>>>> + * stripes. >>>>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++) >>>>>>>>>> + acc->awb_fr.stripes[i].grid_cfg.height_per_slice = 1; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> if (imgu_css_awb_fr_ops_calc(css, pipe, &acc->awb_fr)) >>>>>>>>>> return -EINVAL; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -2591,15 +2591,15 @@ int imgu_css_cfg_acc(struct imgu_css *css, unsigned int pipe, >>>>>>>>>> imgu_css_grid_end(acc->af.stripes[1].grid_cfg.x_start, >>>>>>>>>> acc->af.stripes[1].grid_cfg.width, >>>>>>>>>> b_w_log2); >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> - /* >>>>>>>>>> - * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading statistics >>>>>>>>>> - * fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both stripes >>>>>>>>>> - */ >>>>>>>>>> - for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++) >>>>>>>>>> - acc->af.stripes[i].grid_cfg.height_per_slice = 1; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> + /* >>>>>>>>>> + * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading statistics >>>>>>>>>> + * fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both stripes >>>>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++) >>>>>>>>>> + acc->af.stripes[i].grid_cfg.height_per_slice = 1; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> if (imgu_css_af_ops_calc(css, pipe, &acc->af)) >>>>>>>>>> return -EINVAL; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -2660,15 +2660,15 @@ int imgu_css_cfg_acc(struct imgu_css *css, unsigned int pipe, >>>>>>>>>> imgu_css_grid_end(acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.x_start, >>>>>>>>>> acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.width, >>>>>>>>>> b_w_log2); >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>> - /* >>>>>>>>>> - * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading statistics >>>>>>>>>> - * fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both stripes >>>>>>>>>> - */ >>>>>>>>>> - for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++) >>>>>>>>>> - acc->awb.stripes[i].grid.height_per_slice = 1; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> + /* >>>>>>>>>> + * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading statistics >>>>>>>>>> + * fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both stripes >>>>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++) >>>>>>>>>> + acc->awb.stripes[i].grid.height_per_slice = 1; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> if (imgu_css_awb_ops_calc(css, pipe, &acc->awb)) >>>>>>>>>> return -EINVAL; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While it seems like a sensible idea to initialise arguments to >>>>>>>>> firmware, does this have an effect on the statistics format? If >>>>>>>>> so, can the existing user space cope with that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To try and figure that out, we have tested several grid >>>>>>>> configurations and inspected the captured statistics. We have >>>>>>>> converted the statistics in an image, rendering each cell as a >>>>>>>> pixel whose red, green and blue components are the cell's red, green and blue averages. >>>>>>>> This turned out to be a very effectice tool to quickly visualize >>>>>>>> AWB statistics. >>>>>>>> We have made a lot of tests with different output resolutions, >>>>>>>> from a small one up to the full-scale one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is one example of a statistics output with a ViewFinder >>>>>>>> configured as 1920x1280, with a BDS output configuration set to >>>>>>>> 2304x1536 (sensor is 2592x1944). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Without the patch, configuring a 79x45 grid of 16x16 cells we >>>>>>>> obtain the >>>>>>>> image: https://pasteboard.co/g4nC4fHjbVER.png. >>>>>>>> We can notice a weird padding every two lines and it seems to be >>>>>>>> missing half of the frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With the patch applied, the same configuration gives us the image: >>>>>>>> https://pasteboard.co/rzap6axIvVdu.png >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We can clearly see the one padding pixel on the right, and the >>>>>>>> frame is all there, as expected. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tomasz: We're concerned that this patch may have an impact on >>>>>>>> the ChromeOS Intel Camera HAL with the IPU3. Is it possible for >>>>>>>> someone to review and test this please? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As shown by the images above, this is a real fix. It only affects >>>>>>> grid configurations that use a single stripe (left or right), so >>>>>>> either "small" resolutions (less than 1280 pixels at the BDS >>>>>>> output if I recall correctly), or grid configurations that span >>>>>>> the left part of the image with higher resolutions. The latter is >>>>>>> probably unlikely. For the former, it may affect the binary >>>>>>> library, especially if it includes a workaround for the bug. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still, this change is good I believe, so it should be upstreamed. >
