Re: [PATCH V7 4/4] media: i2c: imx334: add modes for 720p and 480p resolutions

[Kieran Bingham]

Quoting Tarang Raval (2025-03-05 10:40:18)
> Hi Kieran, Shravan
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 3:05 PM
> > > To: mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx; sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; shravan Chippa -
> > > I35088 <Shravan.Chippa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Conor Dooley
> > > - M52691 <Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Valentina Fernandez Alanis -
> > > M63239 <Valentina.FernandezAlanis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Praveen Kumar -
> > > I30718 <Praveen.Kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; shravan Chippa - I35088
> > > <Shravan.Chippa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 4/4] media: i2c: imx334: add modes for 720p and 480p
> > > resolutions
> > >
> > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> > > content is safe
> > >
> > > Quoting shravan kumar (2025-03-05 05:14:42)
> > > > From: Shravan Chippa <shravan.chippa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Added support for 1280x720@30 and 640x480@30 resolutions
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Shravan Chippa <shravan.chippa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >� drivers/media/i2c/imx334.c | 66
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >� 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx334.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx334.c
> > > > index a7c0bd38c9b8..8cd1eecd0143 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx334.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx334.c
> > > > @@ -314,6 +314,46 @@ static const struct imx334_reg
> > > > common_mode_regs[] = {
> > > >�������� {0x3002, 0x00},
> > > >� };
> > > >
> > > > +/* Sensor mode registers for 640x480@30fps */ static const struct
> > > > +imx334_reg mode_640x480_regs[] = {
> > > > +������ {0x302c, 0x70},
> > > > +������ {0x302d, 0x06},
> > >
> > > These two are a single 16 bit register HTRIMMING_START = 1648
> > >
> > > > +������ {0x302e, 0x80},
> > > > +������ {0x302f, 0x02},
> > >
> > > These two are a single 16 bit register HNUM = 640
> > >
> > > > +������ {0x3074, 0x48},
> > > > +������ {0x3075, 0x07},
> > >
> > > These two are a single 16 bit (well, 12 bit value) AREA3_ST_ADR_1 = 1864
> > >
> > > > +������ {0x308e, 0x49},
> > > > +������ {0x308f, 0x07},
> > >
> > > These two are a single 16 bit register AREA3_ST_ADR_2 = 1865
> > >
> > > > +������ {0x3076, 0xe0},
> > > > +������ {0x3077, 0x01},
> > >
> > > These two are a single 16 bit register AREA3_WIDTH_1 = 480
> > >
> > > > +������ {0x3090, 0xe0},
> > > > +������ {0x3091, 0x01},
> > >
> > > These two are a single 16 bit register AREA3_WIDTH_2 = 480
> > >
> > > > +������ {0x3308, 0xe0},
> > > > +������ {0x3309, 0x01},
> > >
> > > These two are a single 16 bit register Y_OUT_SIZE
> > >
> > > Don't you think
> > >�������� { Y_OUT_SIZE, 480 },
> > >
> > > Is so much more readable and easier to comprehend and maintain?
> > >
> > >
> > > > +������ {0x30d8, 0x30},
> > > > +������ {0x30d9, 0x0b},
> > >
> > > These two are a single 16 bit register UNREAD_ED_ADR = 2864
> > >
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > I'm still sad that we can all know the names of all these registers and yet this
> > > is writing new tables of hex values.
> >
> > Do you want me use call like bellow API with register names:
> > CCI_REG16_LE(0x30d8);
> > cci_write();
> > cci_multi_reg_write();
> > devm_cci_regmap_init_i2c();
> 
> I have made a patch series for this sensor driver's improvement, in which 
> I added the V4L2 CCI helper.
> 

Has it been posted yet ?

> I am just waiting for this patch series to be applied so I can send my 
> changes on top of it.

If the conversion will happen after I'm fine with that - but it will
need to be tested by someone with the hardware. Changing to CCI regs can
have impacts that are hard to catch unless you really check and re-test
the driver - so Shravan is best placed if he is actively working on the
sensor.

Personally - I would like to see the CCI conversion happen *first* and
then Shravan's changes go on top of that ! It would be /far/ more
reviewable and readable that way.

(And we'd have more confidence that Shravan will have tested the full
CCI implementation on that version).

--
Kieran


> 
> However, if Shravan wants to make these changes on his own, I don�t mind.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Tarang