Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1690208 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> - 2017-07-18 14:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com> - 2017-07-18 14:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@st.com> - 2017-07-18 15:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi> - 2017-07-18 22:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com> - 2017-07-20 10:40 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@st.com> - 2017-07-20 11:20 +0200

#1690208 — Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera

On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi Hugues,
> 
> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
>>
>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
>>
>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
> 
> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it would be 
> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor.  The original driver 
> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816).  There are
> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are 
> differences in the register layout.  I would go for a separate driver, we  
> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about possible
> regressions.  I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able 
> to test the patch set against regressions.
> 
> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the end 
> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done now.

I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to support
multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).

Regards,

	Hans

> 
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov965x.txt       |  45 ++
>>   drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig                          |   6 +-
>>   drivers/media/i2c/ov9650.c                         | 816 +++++++++++++++++----
>>   3 files changed, 736 insertions(+), 131 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/i2c/ov965x.txt
> 
> --
> Thanks,
> Sylwester
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1690213

Hi,

> Am 18.07.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>:
> 
> On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>> Hi Hugues,
>> 
>> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
>>> 
>>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
>>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
>>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
>>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
>>> 
>>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
>>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
>>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
>>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
>>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
>>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
>>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
>> 
>> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it would be 
>> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor.  The original driver 
>> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816).  There are
>> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are 
>> differences in the register layout.  I would go for a separate driver, we  
>> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about possible
>> regressions.  I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able 
>> to test the patch set against regressions.
>> 
>> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the end 
>> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done now.
> 
> I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to support
> multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).

Well,
IMHO the diffs in ov965x are smaller (but untestable because nobody seems
to have an ov9650/52 board) than within the bq27xxx chips, but I can dig out
an old pdata based separate ov9655 driver and extend that to become DT compatible.

I had abandoned that separate approach in favour of extending the ov965x driver.

Have to discuss with Hugues how to proceed.

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1690244

On 07/18/2017 02:17 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Am 18.07.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>:
>>
>> On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>> Hi Hugues,
>>>
>>> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>>>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
>>>>
>>>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
>>>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
>>>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
>>>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
>>>>
>>>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
>>>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
>>>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
>>>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
>>>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
>>>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
>>>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
>>>
>>> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it would be
>>> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor.  The original driver
>>> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816).  There are
>>> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are
>>> differences in the register layout.  I would go for a separate driver, we
>>> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about possible
>>> regressions.  I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able
>>> to test the patch set against regressions.
>>>
>>> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the end
>>> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done now.
>>
>> I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to support
>> multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).
> 
> Well,
> IMHO the diffs in ov965x are smaller (but untestable because nobody seems
> to have an ov9650/52 board) than within the bq27xxx chips, but I can dig out
> an old pdata based separate ov9655 driver and extend that to become DT compatible.
> 
> I had abandoned that separate approach in favour of extending the ov965x driver.
> 
> Have to discuss with Hugues how to proceed.
> 
> BR and thanks,
> Nikolaus
> 

As Sylwester and Hans, I'm also in flavour of a separate driver, the 
fact that register set seems similar but in fact is not and that we 
cannot test for non-regression of 9650/52 are killer for me to continue 
on a single driver.
We can now restart from a new fresh state of the art sensor driver 
getting rid of legacy (pdata, old gpio, etc...).

BR,
Hugues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1690605

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:53:12PM +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/18/2017 02:17 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> >> Am 18.07.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>:
> >>
> >> On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> >>> Hi Hugues,
> >>>
> >>> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
> >>>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
> >>>>
> >>>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
> >>>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
> >>>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
> >>>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
> >>>>
> >>>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
> >>>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
> >>>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
> >>>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
> >>>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
> >>>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
> >>>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
> >>>
> >>> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it would be
> >>> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor.  The original driver
> >>> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816).  There are
> >>> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are
> >>> differences in the register layout.  I would go for a separate driver, we
> >>> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about possible
> >>> regressions.  I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able
> >>> to test the patch set against regressions.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the end
> >>> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done now.
> >>
> >> I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to support
> >> multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).
> > 
> > Well,
> > IMHO the diffs in ov965x are smaller (but untestable because nobody seems
> > to have an ov9650/52 board) than within the bq27xxx chips, but I can dig out
> > an old pdata based separate ov9655 driver and extend that to become DT compatible.
> > 
> > I had abandoned that separate approach in favour of extending the ov965x driver.
> > 
> > Have to discuss with Hugues how to proceed.
> > 
> > BR and thanks,
> > Nikolaus
> > 
> 
> As Sylwester and Hans, I'm also in flavour of a separate driver, the 
> fact that register set seems similar but in fact is not and that we 
> cannot test for non-regression of 9650/52 are killer for me to continue 
> on a single driver.
> We can now restart from a new fresh state of the art sensor driver 
> getting rid of legacy (pdata, old gpio, etc...).

Agreed. I bet the result will look cleaner indeed although this wasn't one
of the complex drivers.

It'd be nice that someone was able to test the ov9650/2, too, drivers that
are never used tend to break...

-- 
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@iki.fi	XMPP: sailus@retiisi.org.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1692559 — Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera

Hi,

> Am 18.07.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:53:12PM +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/18/2017 02:17 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>> Am 18.07.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>:
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>>>> Hi Hugues,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>>>>>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
>>>>>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
>>>>>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
>>>>>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
>>>>>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
>>>>>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
>>>>>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
>>>>>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
>>>>>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
>>>>>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it would be
>>>>> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor.  The original driver
>>>>> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816).  There are
>>>>> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are
>>>>> differences in the register layout.  I would go for a separate driver, we
>>>>> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about possible
>>>>> regressions.  I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able
>>>>> to test the patch set against regressions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the end
>>>>> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done now.
>>>> 
>>>> I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to support
>>>> multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).
>>> 
>>> Well,
>>> IMHO the diffs in ov965x are smaller (but untestable because nobody seems
>>> to have an ov9650/52 board) than within the bq27xxx chips, but I can dig out
>>> an old pdata based separate ov9655 driver and extend that to become DT compatible.
>>> 
>>> I had abandoned that separate approach in favour of extending the ov965x driver.
>>> 
>>> Have to discuss with Hugues how to proceed.
>>> 
>>> BR and thanks,
>>> Nikolaus
>>> 
>> 
>> As Sylwester and Hans, I'm also in flavour of a separate driver, the 
>> fact that register set seems similar but in fact is not and that we 
>> cannot test for non-regression of 9650/52 are killer for me to continue 
>> on a single driver.
>> We can now restart from a new fresh state of the art sensor driver 
>> getting rid of legacy (pdata, old gpio, etc...).
> 
> Agreed. I bet the result will look cleaner indeed although this wasn't one
> of the complex drivers.

I finally managed to find the bug why mplayer did select-timeout on the GTA04.
Was a bug in pinmux setup of the GTA04 for the omap3isp.

And I have resurrected our years old 3.12 camera driver, which was based on the
MT9P031 code. It was already separate from ov9650/52.

I have extended it to support DT by including some parts of Hugues' work.

It still needs some cleanup and discussion but will be a simple patch (one
for ov9655.c + Kconfig + Makefile) and one for bindings (I hope it includes
all your comments).

I will post v1 in the next days.

BR,
Nikolaus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1692668 — Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera

On 07/20/2017 10:37 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Am 18.07.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:53:12PM +0000, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/18/2017 02:17 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> Am 18.07.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Hugues,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>>>>>>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
>>>>>>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
>>>>>>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
>>>>>>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
>>>>>>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
>>>>>>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
>>>>>>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
>>>>>>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
>>>>>>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
>>>>>>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it would be
>>>>>> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor.  The original driver
>>>>>> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816).  There are
>>>>>> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are
>>>>>> differences in the register layout.  I would go for a separate driver, we
>>>>>> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about possible
>>>>>> regressions.  I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able
>>>>>> to test the patch set against regressions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the end
>>>>>> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to support
>>>>> multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).
>>>>
>>>> Well,
>>>> IMHO the diffs in ov965x are smaller (but untestable because nobody seems
>>>> to have an ov9650/52 board) than within the bq27xxx chips, but I can dig out
>>>> an old pdata based separate ov9655 driver and extend that to become DT compatible.
>>>>
>>>> I had abandoned that separate approach in favour of extending the ov965x driver.
>>>>
>>>> Have to discuss with Hugues how to proceed.
>>>>
>>>> BR and thanks,
>>>> Nikolaus
>>>>
>>>
>>> As Sylwester and Hans, I'm also in flavour of a separate driver, the
>>> fact that register set seems similar but in fact is not and that we
>>> cannot test for non-regression of 9650/52 are killer for me to continue
>>> on a single driver.
>>> We can now restart from a new fresh state of the art sensor driver
>>> getting rid of legacy (pdata, old gpio, etc...).
>>
>> Agreed. I bet the result will look cleaner indeed although this wasn't one
>> of the complex drivers.
> 
> I finally managed to find the bug why mplayer did select-timeout on the GTA04.
> Was a bug in pinmux setup of the GTA04 for the omap3isp.
> 
> And I have resurrected our years old 3.12 camera driver, which was based on the
> MT9P031 code. It was already separate from ov9650/52.
> 
> I have extended it to support DT by including some parts of Hugues' work.
> 
> It still needs some cleanup and discussion but will be a simple patch (one
> for ov9655.c + Kconfig + Makefile) and one for bindings (I hope it includes
> all your comments).
> 
> I will post v1 in the next days.
> 
> BR,
> Nikolaus
> 

Thanks Nikolaus,

I was ready to push the new version in new file ov9655.c with all 
comments included, but as my version is very minimal and I suspect that 
yours is more complete, let's merge things together.
Can I consider that you now take ownership of this driver upstream ?
If so I'll send to you my current patchset so you can compare, 
double-check review comments and add missing support on your side 
(RGB565 and VGA/QVGA resolution matter on my side).

Thanks again Nikolaus for this work,

BR,
Hugues.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web