Re: mt9m111/mt9m131: kernel 3.8 issues.

Benoît Thébaudeau
2013-03-08T11:58:35Z

Hi Javier,

On Friday, March 8, 2013 8:55:25 AM, Javier Martin wrote:
> Hi Benoît,
> thank you for your answer.

You're welcome.

> On 7 March 2013 13:13, Benoît Thébaudeau <benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com>
> wrote:
> > Dear Javier Martin,
> >
> > On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:43:42 AM, Javier Martin wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I am testing mt9m131 sensor (which is supported in mt9m111.c) in
> >> mainline kernel 3.8 with my Visstrim M10, which is an i.MX27 board.
> >>
> >> Since both mx2_camera.c and mt9m111.c are soc_camera drivers making it
> >> work was quite straightforward. However, I've found several issues
> >> regarding mt9m111.c:
> >>
> >> 1. mt9m111 probe is broken. It will give an oops since it tries to use
> >> a context before it's been assigned.
> >> 2. mt9m111 auto exposure control is broken too (see the patch below).
> >> 3. After I've fixed 1 and 2 the colours in the pictures I grab are
> >> dull and not vibrant, green is very dark and red seems like pink, blue
> >> and yellow look fine though. I have both auto exposure and auto white
> >> balance enabled.
> >>
> >> I can see in the list that you have tried this sensor before. Have you
> >> also noticed these problems (specially 3)?
> >
> > I am using the MT9M131 with an i.MX35 board and Linux 3.4.5. It works
> > nicely. I
> > have not noticed 1 and 3. However, I have noticed 2, for which I already
> > have
> > posted a patch (here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2187291/), but I
> > have
> > not yet received any feedback.
>
> I've just added my Tested-By to your patch, and it seems Guennadi will
> merge it. So, we don't have to worry about 2 any more.

Thanks for that.

> Regarding 3, you say it works nicely for you in kernel 3.4.5. I've
> migrated my code to that version but I still get colours that lack
> enough intensity.
> This is a snapshot "a" taken with my mobile which is much more similar
> to what I can really see with my eyes:
> http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1451/20130307171334.jpg
>
> This is a similar snapshot "b" taken with mt9m131 in my board. It
> shows that colours tend to be dull and darker, specially green:
> http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6025/testgo.jpg
>
> Are the snapshots you take with your HW more similar to "a" or to
> "b"? Perhaps I am being too picky with the image quality and this is
> all what mt9m131 can do?

I fear that my captures are closer to "b". Your description of "3" was giving
the impression of flashy colors. But the impression that this sensor gives me is
rather a superimposed gray film. This effect is more or less visible depending
on the lighting conditions, but it never seems to produce high quality colors.

> >> This patch is just to provide a quick fix for points 1 and 2 just in
> >> case you feel like testing this in kernel 3.8. If you consider these
> >> fix are valid I'll send a proper patch later:
> >
> > It's not straightforward to port my board to 3.8, but I've just reviewed
> > the
> > code in linux-next (see below).
> >
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9m111.c
> >> b/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9m111.c
> >> index 62fd94a..7d99655 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9m111.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9m111.c
> >> @@ -704,7 +704,7 @@ static int mt9m111_set_autoexposure(struct mt9m111
> >> *mt9m111, int on)
> >> {
> >> struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(&mt9m111->subdev);
> >>
> >> - if (on)
> >> + if (on == V4L2_EXPOSURE_AUTO)
> >> return reg_set(OPER_MODE_CTRL,
> >> MT9M111_OPMODE_AUTOEXPO_EN);
> >> return reg_clear(OPER_MODE_CTRL, MT9M111_OPMODE_AUTOEXPO_EN);
> >> }
> >
> > This hunk does the same thing as my patch mentioned above, so please don't
> > send
> > anything for that.
>
> Sure.
>
> >> @@ -916,6 +916,9 @@ static int mt9m111_video_probe(struct i2c_client
> >> *client)
> >> s32 data;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> + /* Assign context to avoid oops */
> >> + mt9m111->ctx = &context_a;
> >> +
> >> ret = mt9m111_s_power(&mt9m111->subdev, 1);
> >> if (ret < 0)
> >> return ret;
> >
> > There is indeed a bug, introduced by commit 4bbc6d5. The issue is:
> > mt9m111_set_context(mt9m111, mt9m111->ctx);
> > in mt9m111_restore_state() called (indirectly) from mt9m111_s_power() from
> > mt9m111_video_probe() with ctx still NULL, before mt9m111_init() has been
> > called
> > to initialize ctx to &context_b.
> >
> > So the fix would not be what you did, but rather to reorganize things a
> > little
> > bit to avoid this out-of-order init and use of ctx.
>
> Thanks, I will take a look at the offending commit and try to
> reorganize the code properly.

Thanks for working on it. I will probably need this fix too later.

Best regards,
Benoît