Re: [PATCH v2] media: i2c: Fix imx412 exposure control

[Bryan O'Donoghue]

On 08/05/2024 09:02, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> Hi Bryan
>
> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 11:38:26PM GMT, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> > Currently we have the following algorithm to calculate what value should be
> > written to the exposure control of imx412.
> >
> > lpfr = imx412->vblank + imx412->cur_mode->height;
> > shutter = lpfr - exposure;
> >
> > The 'shutter' value is given to IMX412_REG_EXPOSURE_CIT however, the above
> > algorithm will result in the value given to IMX412_REG_EXPOSURE_CIT
> > decreasing as the requested exposure value from user-space goes up.
> >
> > e.g.
> > [ 2255.713989] imx412 20-001a: Received exp 1608, analog gain 0
> > [ 2255.714002] imx412 20-001a: Set exp 1608, analog gain 0, shutter 1938, lpfr 3546
> > [ 2256.302770] imx412 20-001a: Received exp 2586, analog gain 100
> > [ 2256.302800] imx412 20-001a: Set exp 2586, analog gain 100, shutter 960, lpfr 3546
> > [ 2256.753755] imx412 20-001a: Received exp 3524, analog gain 110
> > [ 2256.753772] imx412 20-001a: Set exp 3524, analog gain 110, shutter 22, lpfr 3546
> >
> > This behaviour results in the image having less exposure as the requested
> > exposure value from user-space increases.
> >
> > Other sensor drivers such as ov5675, imx218, hid556 and others take the
> > requested exposure value and directly.
>
> has the phrase been truncated or is it me reading it wrong ?

Sod's law says no matter how many times you send yourself a patch before 
sending it to LKML you'll find a typo ~ 2 seconds after reading your 
patch on LKML.


> > Looking at the range of imx sensors, it appears this particular error has
> > been replicated a number of times but, I haven't so far really drilled into
> > each sensor.
>
> Ouch, what other driver have the same issue ?

So without data sheet or sensor its hard to say if these are correct or 
incorrect, it's the same basic calculation though.

drivers/media/i2c/imx334.c::imx334_update_exp_gain()

        lpfr = imx334->vblank + imx334->cur_mode->height;
        shutter = lpfr - exposure;

        ret = imx334_write_reg(imx334, IMX334_REG_SHUTTER, 3, shutter);


drivers/media/i2c/imx335.c::imx335_update_exp_gain()

        lpfr = imx335->vblank + imx335->cur_mode->height;
        shutter = lpfr - exposure;

        ret = imx335_write_reg(imx335, IMX334_REG_SHUTTER, 3, shutter);


Looking again I'm inclined to believe the imx334/imx335 stuff is 
probably correct for those sensors, got copied to imx412/imx577 and 
misapplied to the EXPOSURE control in imx412.


> > -	ret = imx412_write_reg(imx412, IMX412_REG_EXPOSURE_CIT, 2, shutter);
> > +	ret = imx412_write_reg(imx412, IMX412_REG_EXPOSURE_CIT, 2, exposure);
>
> No datasheet here, can you confirm the IMX412_REG_EXPOSURE_CIT
> register is actually in lines ?


Looks like.

From downstream "coarseIntgTimeAddr"

imx577_sensor.xml
    <coarseIntgTimeAddr>0x0202</coarseIntgTimeAddr>

imx586/imx586_sensor.cpp
pRegSettingsInfo->regSetting[regCount].registerAddr  = 
pExposureData->pRegInfo->coarseIntgTimeAddr + 1;

pRegSettingsInfo->regSetting[regCount].registerData  = (lineCount & 0xFF);

> Apart from that, as the CID_EXPOSURE control limit are correctly
> updated when a new VBLANK is set by taking into account the exposure
> margins, I think writing the control value to the register is the
> right thing to do (if the register is in lines of course)
>
> Reviewed-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks
>    j

If that's good enough I'll fix the typo and apply your RB.

---
bod