Re: [PATCH 2/3] media: i2c: imx219: Add support for SRGGB8_1X8 format

From: Lad, Prabhakar
Date: Tue Mar 03 2020 - 02:42:43 EST

Hi Dave,

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:44 PM Dave Stevenson
<dave.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 15:12, Dave Stevenson
> <dave.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lad.
> >
> > Thanks for the patch. A few things look wrong with it though.
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 16:55, Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > imx219 sensor is capable for RAW8/RAW10 modes, this commit adds support
> > > for SRGGB8_1X8 format.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c
> > > index 8b48e148f2d0..1388c9bc00bb 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c
> > > @@ -90,6 +90,9 @@
> > >
> > > #define IMX219_REG_ORIENTATION 0x0172
> > >
> > > +#define IMX219_CSI_DATA_FORMAT_A_0_7 0x018c
> > > +#define IMX219_CSI_DATA_FORMAT_A_8_15 0x018d
> > > +
> > > /* Test Pattern Control */
> > > #define IMX219_REG_TEST_PATTERN 0x0600
> > > #define IMX219_TEST_PATTERN_DISABLE 0
> > > @@ -135,6 +138,16 @@ struct imx219_mode {
> > > struct imx219_reg_list reg_list;
> > > };
> > >
> > > +struct imx219_pixfmt {
> > > + u32 code;
> > > + u32 colorspace;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct imx219_pixfmt imx219_formats[] = {
> > > + { MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB8_1X8, V4L2_COLORSPACE_SRGB, },
> > > + { MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB10_1X10, V4L2_COLORSPACE_SRGB },
> >
> > Why do we need the colorspace here when they are both the same? I
> > don't see any additional formats ever being added as the sensor
> > doesn't support them, so this seems redundant.
> >
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Register sets lifted off the i2C interface from the Raspberry Pi firmware
> > > * driver.
> > > @@ -168,8 +181,6 @@ static const struct imx219_reg mode_3280x2464_regs[] = {
> > > {0x0171, 0x01},
> > > {0x0174, 0x00},
> > > {0x0175, 0x00},
> > > - {0x018c, 0x0a},
> > > - {0x018d, 0x0a},
> > > {0x0301, 0x05},
> > > {0x0303, 0x01},
> > > {0x0304, 0x03},
> > > @@ -230,8 +241,6 @@ static const struct imx219_reg mode_1920_1080_regs[] = {
> > > {0x0171, 0x01},
> > > {0x0174, 0x00},
> > > {0x0175, 0x00},
> > > - {0x018c, 0x0a},
> > > - {0x018d, 0x0a},
> > > {0x0301, 0x05},
> > > {0x0303, 0x01},
> > > {0x0304, 0x03},
> > > @@ -290,8 +299,6 @@ static const struct imx219_reg mode_1640_1232_regs[] = {
> > > {0x0171, 0x01},
> > > {0x0174, 0x01},
> > > {0x0175, 0x01},
> > > - {0x018c, 0x0a},
> > > - {0x018d, 0x0a},
> > > {0x0301, 0x05},
> > > {0x0303, 0x01},
> > > {0x0304, 0x03},
> > >
> > > @@ -413,6 +420,8 @@ struct imx219 {
> > > struct v4l2_subdev sd;
> > > struct media_pad pad;
> > >
> > > + struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt fmt;
> > > +
> > > struct clk *xclk; /* system clock to IMX219 */
> > > u32 xclk_freq;
> > >
> > > @@ -519,19 +528,26 @@ static int imx219_write_regs(struct imx219 *imx219,
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* Get bayer order based on flip setting. */
> > > -static u32 imx219_get_format_code(struct imx219 *imx219)
> > > +static u32 imx219_get_format_code(struct imx219 *imx219, u32 code)
> > > {
> > > - /*
> > > - * Only one bayer order is supported.
> > > - * It depends on the flip settings.
> > > - */
> > > - static const u32 codes[2][2] = {
> > > + static const u32 codes10[2][2] = {
> > > { MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB10_1X10, MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SGRBG10_1X10, },
> > > { MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SGBRG10_1X10, MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SBGGR10_1X10, },
> > > };
> > > + static const u32 codes8[2][2] = {
> > > + { MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB8_1X8, MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SGRBG8_1X8, },
> > > + { MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SGBRG8_1X8, MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SBGGR8_1X8, },
> > > + };
> > >
> > > lockdep_assert_held(&imx219->mutex);
> > > - return codes[imx219->vflip->val][imx219->hflip->val];
> > > +
> > > + if (code == MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB10_1X10 ||
> > > + code == MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SGRBG10_1X10 ||
> > > + code == MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SGBRG10_1X10 ||
> > > + code == MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SBGGR10_1X10)
> > > + return codes10[imx219->vflip->val][imx219->hflip->val];
> > > +
> > > + return codes8[imx219->vflip->val][imx219->hflip->val];
> >
> > Why defaulting to 8 bit? It's changing the behaviour for existing users.
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > static int imx219_open(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_subdev_fh *fh)
> > > @@ -539,13 +555,26 @@ static int imx219_open(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_subdev_fh *fh)
> > > struct imx219 *imx219 = to_imx219(sd);
> > > struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt *try_fmt =
> > > v4l2_subdev_get_try_format(sd, fh->pad, 0);
> > > + struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt *fmt;
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&imx219->mutex);
> > >
> > > + fmt = &imx219->fmt;
> > > + fmt->code = MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB8_1X8;
> >
> > Again, why defaulting to 8 bit? It's changing the behaviour for existing users.
> >
> > > + fmt->colorspace = V4L2_COLORSPACE_SRGB;
> > > + fmt->ycbcr_enc = V4L2_MAP_YCBCR_ENC_DEFAULT(fmt->colorspace);
> > > + fmt->quantization = V4L2_MAP_QUANTIZATION_DEFAULT(true,
> > > + fmt->colorspace,
> > > + fmt->ycbcr_enc);
> > > + fmt->xfer_func = V4L2_MAP_XFER_FUNC_DEFAULT(fmt->colorspace);
> > > + fmt->width = supported_modes[0].width;
> > > + fmt->height = supported_modes[0].height;
> > > + fmt->field = V4L2_FIELD_NONE;
> > > +
> > > /* Initialize try_fmt */
> > > try_fmt->width = supported_modes[0].width;
> > > try_fmt->height = supported_modes[0].height;
> > > - try_fmt->code = imx219_get_format_code(imx219);
> > > + try_fmt->code = imx219_get_format_code(imx219, fmt->code);
> > > try_fmt->field = V4L2_FIELD_NONE;
> > >
> > > mutex_unlock(&imx219->mutex);
> > > @@ -646,16 +675,12 @@ static int imx219_enum_mbus_code(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > > struct v4l2_subdev_pad_config *cfg,
> > > struct v4l2_subdev_mbus_code_enum *code)
> > > {
> > > - struct imx219 *imx219 = to_imx219(sd);
> > > -
> > > - /*
> > > - * Only one bayer order is supported (though it depends on the flip
> > > - * settings)
> > > - */
> > > - if (code->index > 0)
> > > + if (code->pad != 0)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + if (code->index >= ARRAY_SIZE(imx219_formats))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > - code->code = imx219_get_format_code(imx219);
> > > + code->code = imx219_formats[code->index].code;
> >
> > This can't be right as it will only ever advertise
> > MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB8_1X8 or MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB10_1X10, when the
> > actual formats supported will change based on the H&V flips.
> > MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB8_1X8. A caller therefore can't know the correct
> > format should H or V flip be active, therefore can't set the right
> > thing.
> >
> > code->code = imx219_get_format_code(imx219, imx219_formats[code->index].code);
> > would look more plausible.
> >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > @@ -669,7 +694,7 @@ static int imx219_enum_frame_size(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > > if (fse->index >= ARRAY_SIZE(supported_modes))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > - if (fse->code != imx219_get_format_code(imx219))
> > > + if (fse->code != imx219_get_format_code(imx219, imx219->fmt.code))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > fse->min_width = supported_modes[fse->index].width;
> > > @@ -696,7 +721,7 @@ static void imx219_update_pad_format(struct imx219 *imx219,
> > > {
> > > fmt->format.width = mode->width;
> > > fmt->format.height = mode->height;
> > > - fmt->format.code = imx219_get_format_code(imx219);
> > > + fmt->format.code = imx219_get_format_code(imx219, imx219->fmt.code);
> > > fmt->format.field = V4L2_FIELD_NONE;
> > >
> > > imx219_reset_colorspace(&fmt->format);
> > > @@ -710,7 +735,7 @@ static int __imx219_get_pad_format(struct imx219 *imx219,
> > > struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt *try_fmt =
> > > v4l2_subdev_get_try_format(&imx219->sd, cfg, fmt->pad);
> > > /* update the code which could change due to vflip or hflip: */
> > > - try_fmt->code = imx219_get_format_code(imx219);
> > > + try_fmt->code = imx219_get_format_code(imx219, try_fmt->code);
> > > fmt->format = *try_fmt;
> > > } else {
> > > imx219_update_pad_format(imx219, imx219->mode, fmt);
> > > @@ -741,11 +766,19 @@ static int imx219_set_pad_format(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > > const struct imx219_mode *mode;
> > > struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt *framefmt;
> > > int exposure_max, exposure_def, hblank;
> > > + int i;
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&imx219->mutex);
> > >
> > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(imx219_formats); i++)
> > > + if (imx219_formats[i].code == fmt->format.code)
> > > + break;
> > > + if (i >= ARRAY_SIZE(imx219_formats))
> > > + i = 0;
> > > +
> >
> > Again, this doesn't take into account the H&V flips altering the Bayer
> > format. If either are engaged then you can't change between 8 & 10 bit
> > formats.
> >
> > It feels like having imx219_formats is the wrong approach.
> > We already have all the formats available in a combination of codes8
> > and codes10 (admittedly static to imx219_get_format_code). Is it
> > better to make it into a single array where there is a strict
> > requirement for the formats to be in the correct order of (eg) no
> > flip, h flip, v flip, h&v flip. A lookup can then be a straight scan
> > of the list. A correction for flip order is then index = (index & ~3)
> > | (v_flip ? 2 : 0) | (h_flip ? 1 : 0);
> >
> > > /* Bayer order varies with flips */
> > > - fmt->format.code = imx219_get_format_code(imx219);
> > > + fmt->format.code = imx219_get_format_code(imx219,
> > > + imx219_formats[i].code);
> > >
> > > mode = v4l2_find_nearest_size(supported_modes,
> > > ARRAY_SIZE(supported_modes),
> > > @@ -756,6 +789,7 @@ static int imx219_set_pad_format(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > > framefmt = v4l2_subdev_get_try_format(sd, cfg, fmt->pad);
> > > *framefmt = fmt->format;
> > > } else if (imx219->mode != mode) {
> > > + imx219->fmt = fmt->format;
> > > imx219->mode = mode;
> > > /* Update limits and set FPS to default */
> > > __v4l2_ctrl_modify_range(imx219->vblank, IMX219_VBLANK_MIN,
> > > @@ -786,6 +820,36 @@ static int imx219_set_pad_format(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int imx219_set_framefmt(struct imx219 *imx219)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + switch (imx219->fmt.code) {
> > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB8_1X8:
> > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SGRBG8_1X8:
> > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SGBRG8_1X8:
> > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SBGGR8_1X8:
> > > + ret = imx219_write_reg(imx219, IMX219_CSI_DATA_FORMAT_A_0_7,
> > > + IMX219_REG_VALUE_08BIT, 0x08);
> > > + ret |= imx219_write_reg(imx219, IMX219_CSI_DATA_FORMAT_A_8_15,
> > > + IMX219_REG_VALUE_08BIT, 0x08);
> > > + break;
> > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SRGGB10_1X10:
> > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SGRBG10_1X10:
> > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SGBRG10_1X10:
> > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_SBGGR10_1X10:
> > > + ret = imx219_write_reg(imx219, IMX219_CSI_DATA_FORMAT_A_0_7,
> > > + IMX219_REG_VALUE_08BIT, 0x0a);
> > > + ret |= imx219_write_reg(imx219, IMX219_CSI_DATA_FORMAT_A_8_15,
> > > + IMX219_REG_VALUE_08BIT, 0x0a);
> > > + break;
> >
> > As just queried on your patch adding the 640x480 mode, do we not need
> > to modify 0x0309 / OPPXCK_DIV to match the pixel format?
>
> To answer my own question, yes we appear to need to modify 0x0309 as
> well in order to get correct images out.
>
> > How do you propose handling matching pixel rate vs link frequency
> > between the two modes?
>
> I don't have useful tools here to determine the correct link frequency.
> The pixel rate clock tree hasn't been modified, therefore must still
> be the same. Indeed I'm getting the same frame rate out whether in 8
> or 10 bit mode.
>
> The division by 8 instead of 10 in OPPXCK would presumably drop the
> link frequency, but the mipi_CLK feeding the MIPI block hasn't been
> modified, therefore has the link frequency actually changed?
>
Ill do some measurements on my end check the frequencies.

> > I'm seeing corrupted images, which probably implies the FIFO between
> > "pipeline" and "MIPI" shown in Figure 43 of the datasheet is under or
> > over flowing.
> >
> > > + default:
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static int imx219_start_streaming(struct imx219 *imx219)
> > > {
> > > struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(&imx219->sd);
> > > @@ -800,6 +864,12 @@ static int imx219_start_streaming(struct imx219 *imx219)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + ret = imx219_set_framefmt(imx219);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + dev_err(&client->dev, "%s failed to set format\n", __func__);
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > /* Apply customized values from user */
> > > ret = __v4l2_ctrl_handler_setup(imx219->sd.ctrl_handler);
> > > if (ret)
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1
> > >
>
> I've had a quick play, and I think there's a further issue with
> switching between 8 and 10 bit modes when choosing the same
> resolution.
> imx219_set_pad_format checks that the mode is actually changing before
> jumping through the hoops of updating the internal state, therefore
> the change of format is ignored. An extra clause checking the format
> is the minimum needed there.
>
> I've pushed my hacks on top of your patches to
> https://github.com/6by9/linux/tree/imx219
> Whilst it's based on a 5.4 tree, the top few commits are applying the
> mainlined driver, adding your patches, and then my fixup.
> I've mainly tested that it streams sensible images in a few
> resolutions and 8/10 bit modes, not that everything is perfect.
>
Appreciate the effort. I shall test it on my platform and the squash
into a single patch
if all goes well.

Cheers,
--Prabhakar

> Dave