Hi Benoit, On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:07:41AM -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote: > Sakari Ailus <[email protected]> wrote on Thu [2019-Oct-03 > 10:22:51 +0300]: > > Hi Jacopo, Benoit, > > > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 09:17:14AM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > 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 { }. > > > > > > > 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). > > > > Hmm. Considering the xclk rate may be pretty much anything, I'd suppose > > the value above would only be correct for a given xclk rate. > > I am not sure about that, different xclk rate might yield slightly > different byte clock, but all in all the resolution and framerate pretty > much dictate the end result, no?
Interestingly, the driver determines the PLL configuration based on the pixels per line and lines per frame (including blanking) and the frames per seconds. I guess it's always been like that in this driver. So I agree the target frame rate can be used for this. You could change ov5640_set_mode() to use this function as well to avoid doing the same calculation twice in different places in the driver. Up to you. > > > > > Could this be simply calculated from the clock tree configuration, to get > > the right value in all cases? > > It probably could, and as I said earlier I gave it a try and failed, since > the theoretical value worked for me that's what I went with. Those are the > same values that Maxime's patch referred to. (dfbfb7aa832cdb media: ov5640: > Compute the clock rate at runtime). > > Here I am just "publishing it". > > Benoit > > > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > Thanks > > > j > > > > > > > + V4L2_CID_PIXEL_RATE, 0, INT_MAX, 1, > > > > + ov5640_calc_pixel_rate(sensor)); > > > > > > > > > > + ctrls->pixel_rate->flags |= V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_READ_ONLY; > > > > Note that ctrls->pixel_rate is NULL if e.g. memory allocation fails when > > creating the control. > > > > > > + > > > > /* 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); > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Sakari Ailus > > [email protected] -- Sakari Ailus [email protected]
