Re: [PATCH 0/5] media: Allwinner A10 CSI support

[Hans Verkuil]

On 11/13/18 14:52, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Hans,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:30:49PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> On 11/13/18 09:24, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is a series introducing the support for the A10 (and SoCs of the same
>>> generation) CMOS Sensor Interface (called CSI, not to be confused with
>>> MIPI-CSI, which isn't support by that IP).
>>>
>>> That interface is pretty straightforward, but the driver has a few issues
>>> that I wanted to bring up:
>>>
>>>   * The only board I've been testing this with has an ov5640 sensor
>>>     attached, which doesn't work with the upstream driver. Copying the
>>>     Allwinner init sequence works though, and this is how it has been
>>>     tested. Testing with a second sensor would allow to see if it's an
>>>     issue on the CSI side or the sensor side.
>>>   * When starting a capture, the last buffer to capture will fail due to
>>>     double buffering being used, and we don't have a next buffer for the
>>>     last frame. I'm not sure how to deal with that though. It seems like
>>>     some drivers use a scratch buffer in such a case, some don't care, so
>>>     I'm not sure which solution should be preferred.
>>>   * We don't have support for the ISP at the moment, but this can be added
>>>     eventually.
>>>
>>>   * How to model the CSI module clock isn't really clear to me. It looks
>>>     like it goes through the CSI controller and then is muxed to one of the
>>>     CSI pin so that it can clock the sensor. I'm not quite sure how to
>>>     model it, if it should be a clock, the CSI driver being a clock
>>>     provider, or if the sensor should just use the module clock directly.
>>>
>>> Here is the v4l2-compliance output:
>>
>> Test v4l2-compliance with the -s option so you test streaming as well.
>> Even better is -f where it tests streaming with all available formats.
> 
> I will, thanks for the tip!
> 
>>> v4l2-compliance SHA   : 339d550e92ac15de8668f32d66d16f198137006c
>>
>> Hmm, I can't find this SHA. Was this built from the main v4l-utils repo?
> 
> It was, but using Buildroot. The version packaged in the latest stable
> version I was using (2018.08) is 1.14.2.

That's seriously out of date. That's why I show the SHA, to see if
someone is testing with a recent version of the utility, so it served
its purpose here :-)

Latest release is 1.16.2.

But when submitting new drivers you really need to build it yourself from
the master branch, that's the only way to be sure you have all the latest
compliance checks.

> 
> Looking at the Makefile from v4l2-compliance, it looks like it just
> invokes git to retrieve the git commit and uses that as the hash. In
> Buildroot's case, since buildroot will download the tarball, this will
> end up returning the SHA commit of the buildroot repo building the
> sources, not the version of the sources themselves.
> 
> I'm not sure how to address that properly though. Thomas, how do you
> usually deal with this?

Note that cec-compliance and cec-follower do the same, for the same
reason.

Where does the tarball come from?

Regards,

	Hans

> 
> Thanks!
> Maxime
>