Hi Kieran, On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:49:29AM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote: > Hi Sakari, Laurent, > > Last night I hooked up the Arducam 64 MP Hawkeye camera [0], to an RPi4, > and added the camera helper for the RaspberryPi IPA to libcamera, and > was able to use the camera directly with dtoverlay=arducam_64mp in the > Raspberry Pi /boot/config.txt using the latest release from Raspberry > Pi. > > Raspberry Pi have already added the driver for this camera [1] to their > tree, and I have been given the tuning files from Arducam. > > This has allowed me to capture an image with pretty good response to > changing lighting conditions, and colours. [2] ... The AF isn't yet > enabled, so that shot is out of focus a little. (That's for later). > > Arducam do not wish to name the sensor used in the module, and have > called it the 'arducam_64mp'. But attempting to upstreaming this with > that name worries me. > > Furthermore, we would like to maintain libcamera as supporting cameras > that have 'upstream' drivers (or drivers that are on their way > upstream), so I'm keen to identify how we can upstream the drivers to > create a better experience for users who are currently finding that they > need to run a fork of libcamera to operate the module. > > So ultimately - my open question is ... Is it acceptable to have camera > drivers that are named by their 'module/integration' rather than their > sensor? A lot of users (especially the existing ones) depend on the entity name currently. I don't think we could change it. For new ones I guess that would be possible. Alternatively this could be a string control I think. That could be added to existing drivers as well. -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus
