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

Benoit Parrot
2019-10-03T11:57:51Z

Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org> 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@ti.com>
> > ---
> > 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
> >