Re: [Patch v2 1/3] media: ov5640: add PIXEL_RATE control

[Benoit Parrot]

Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu [2019-Oct-03 09:17:14 +0200]:
> Hi Benoit,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:51:32AM -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote:
> > Add v4l2 controls to report the pixel rates of each mode. This is
> > needed by some CSI2 receiver in order to perform proper DPHY
> > configuration.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benoit Parrot <bparrot@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/media/i2c/ov5640.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov5640.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov5640.c
> > index 500d9bbff10b..5198dc887400 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov5640.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov5640.c
> > @@ -193,6 +193,9 @@ struct ov5640_mode_info {
> >
> >  struct ov5640_ctrls {
> >  	struct v4l2_ctrl_handler handler;
> > +	struct {
> > +		struct v4l2_ctrl *pixel_rate;
> > +	};
> 
> Do you need to wrap this v4l2_ctrl in it's own unnamed struct? Other
> controls here declared in this way are clustered and, if I'm not
> mistaken, using unnamed struct to wrap them is just a typographically
> nice way to convey that. I think your new control could be declared
> without a wrapping struct { }.

Probably not, just tried to be consistent with the rest of code here.

> 
> >  	struct {
> >  		struct v4l2_ctrl *auto_exp;
> >  		struct v4l2_ctrl *exposure;
> > @@ -2194,6 +2197,16 @@ static int ov5640_try_fmt_internal(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +static u64 ov5640_calc_pixel_rate(struct ov5640_dev *sensor)
> > +{
> > +	u64 rate;
> > +
> > +	rate = sensor->current_mode->vtot * sensor->current_mode->htot;
> > +	rate *= ov5640_framerates[sensor->current_fr];
> > +
> > +	return rate;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> Just to point out this is the -theoretical- pixel rate, and might be
> quite different from the one calculated by the clock tree tuning
> procedure (which should be updated to match Hugues' latest findings).

True, and to my surprise my receiver worked with all of those value even if
some actual value maybe off, I guess in my case they were close enough.

> 
> >  static int ov5640_set_fmt(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >  			  struct v4l2_subdev_pad_config *cfg,
> >  			  struct v4l2_subdev_format *format)
> > @@ -2233,6 +2246,8 @@ static int ov5640_set_fmt(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >  	if (mbus_fmt->code != sensor->fmt.code)
> >  		sensor->pending_fmt_change = true;
> >
> > +	__v4l2_ctrl_s_ctrl_int64(sensor->ctrls.pixel_rate,
> > +				 ov5640_calc_pixel_rate(sensor));
> >  out:
> >  	mutex_unlock(&sensor->lock);
> >  	return ret;
> > @@ -2657,6 +2672,13 @@ static int ov5640_init_controls(struct ov5640_dev *sensor)
> >  	/* we can use our own mutex for the ctrl lock */
> >  	hdl->lock = &sensor->lock;
> >
> > +	/* Clock related controls */
> > +	ctrls->pixel_rate =
> > +		v4l2_ctrl_new_std(hdl, ops,
> 
> If you like it better, this could fit in 1 line
> 
> 	ctrls->pixel_rate = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(hdl, ops, V4L2_CID_PIXEL_RATE,
> 					      0, INT_MAX, 1,
> 					      ov5640_calc_pixel_rate(sensor)
>

Either way works for me.

Benoit
 
> Thanks
>    j
> 
> > +				  V4L2_CID_PIXEL_RATE, 0, INT_MAX, 1,
> > +				  ov5640_calc_pixel_rate(sensor));
> 
> 
> > +	ctrls->pixel_rate->flags |= V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_READ_ONLY;
> > +
> >  	/* Auto/manual white balance */
> >  	ctrls->auto_wb = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(hdl, ops,
> >  					   V4L2_CID_AUTO_WHITE_BALANCE,
> > @@ -2816,6 +2838,9 @@ static int ov5640_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >  		sensor->frame_interval = fi->interval;
> >  		sensor->current_mode = mode;
> >  		sensor->pending_mode_change = true;
> > +
> > +		__v4l2_ctrl_s_ctrl_int64(sensor->ctrls.pixel_rate,
> > +					 ov5640_calc_pixel_rate(sensor));
> >  	}
> >  out:
> >  	mutex_unlock(&sensor->lock);
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >