Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera

[Hugues FRUCHET]

On 07/20/2017 10:37 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Am 18.07.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Sakari Ailus :
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:53:12PM +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/18/2017 02:17 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 Hi,

> Am 18.07.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Hans Verkuil :
>
> On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>> Hi Hugues,
>>
>> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
>>>
>>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
>>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
>>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
>>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
>>>
>>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
>>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
>>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
>>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
>>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
>>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
>>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
>>
>> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it 
>> would be
>> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor.  The original 
>> driver
>> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816).  There are
>> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are
>> differences in the register layout.  I would go for a separate driver, we
>> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about 
>> possible
>> regressions.  I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able
>> to test the patch set against regressions.
>>
>> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the 
>> end
>> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done 
>> now.
>
> I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to 
> support
> multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).

 Well,
 IMHO the diffs in ov965x are smaller (but untestable because nobody seems
 to have an ov9650/52 board) than within the bq27xxx chips, but I can dig 
 out
 an old pdata based separate ov9655 driver and extend that to become DT 
 compatible.

 I had abandoned that separate approach in favour of extending the ov965x 
 driver.

 Have to discuss with Hugues how to proceed.

 BR and thanks,
 Nikolaus

>>>
>>> As Sylwester and Hans, I'm also in flavour of a separate driver, the
>>> fact that register set seems similar but in fact is not and that we
>>> cannot test for non-regression of 9650/52 are killer for me to continue
>>> on a single driver.
>>> We can now restart from a new fresh state of the art sensor driver
>>> getting rid of legacy (pdata, old gpio, etc...).
>>
>> Agreed. I bet the result will look cleaner indeed although this wasn't one
>> of the complex drivers.
> 
> I finally managed to find the bug why mplayer did select-timeout on the GTA04.
> Was a bug in pinmux setup of the GTA04 for the omap3isp.
> 
> And I have resurrected our years old 3.12 camera driver, which was based on 
> the
> MT9P031 code. It was already separate from ov9650/52.
> 
> I have extended it to support DT by including some parts of Hugues' work.
> 
> It still needs some cleanup and discussion but will be a simple patch (one
> for ov9655.c + Kconfig + Makefile) and one for bindings (I hope it includes
> all your comments).
> 
> I will post v1 in the next days.
> 
> BR,
> Nikolaus
> 

Thanks Nikolaus,

I was ready to push the new version in new file ov9655.c with all 
comments included, but as my version is very minimal and I suspect that 
yours is more complete, let's merge things together.
Can I consider that you now take ownership of this driver upstream ?
If so I'll send to you my current patchset so you can compare, 
double-check review comments and add missing support on your side 
(RGB565 and VGA/QVGA resolution matter on my side).

Thanks again Nikolaus for this work,

BR,
Hugues.

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera

[Hugues FRUCHET]

On 07/20/2017 10:37 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Am 18.07.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Sakari Ailus :
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:53:12PM +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/18/2017 02:17 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
 Hi,

> Am 18.07.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Hans Verkuil :
>
> On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>> Hi Hugues,
>>
>> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
>>>
>>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
>>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
>>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
>>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
>>>
>>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
>>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
>>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
>>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
>>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
>>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
>>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
>>
>> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it 
>> would be
>> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor.  The original 
>> driver
>> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816).  There are
>> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are
>> differences in the register layout.  I would go for a separate driver, we
>> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about 
>> possible
>> regressions.  I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able
>> to test the patch set against regressions.
>>
>> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the 
>> end
>> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done 
>> now.
>
> I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to 
> support
> multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).

 Well,
 IMHO the diffs in ov965x are smaller (but untestable because nobody seems
 to have an ov9650/52 board) than within the bq27xxx chips, but I can dig 
 out
 an old pdata based separate ov9655 driver and extend that to become DT 
 compatible.

 I had abandoned that separate approach in favour of extending the ov965x 
 driver.

 Have to discuss with Hugues how to proceed.

 BR and thanks,
 Nikolaus

>>>
>>> As Sylwester and Hans, I'm also in flavour of a separate driver, the
>>> fact that register set seems similar but in fact is not and that we
>>> cannot test for non-regression of 9650/52 are killer for me to continue
>>> on a single driver.
>>> We can now restart from a new fresh state of the art sensor driver
>>> getting rid of legacy (pdata, old gpio, etc...).
>>
>> Agreed. I bet the result will look cleaner indeed although this wasn't one
>> of the complex drivers.
> 
> I finally managed to find the bug why mplayer did select-timeout on the GTA04.
> Was a bug in pinmux setup of the GTA04 for the omap3isp.
> 
> And I have resurrected our years old 3.12 camera driver, which was based on 
> the
> MT9P031 code. It was already separate from ov9650/52.
> 
> I have extended it to support DT by including some parts of Hugues' work.
> 
> It still needs some cleanup and discussion but will be a simple patch (one
> for ov9655.c + Kconfig + Makefile) and one for bindings (I hope it includes
> all your comments).
> 
> I will post v1 in the next days.
> 
> BR,
> Nikolaus
> 

Thanks Nikolaus,

I was ready to push the new version in new file ov9655.c with all 
comments included, but as my version is very minimal and I suspect that 
yours is more complete, let's merge things together.
Can I consider that you now take ownership of this driver upstream ?
If so I'll send to you my current patchset so you can compare, 
double-check review comments and add missing support on your side 
(RGB565 and VGA/QVGA resolution matter on my side).

Thanks again Nikolaus for this work,

BR,
Hugues.

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Hi,

> Am 18.07.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Sakari Ailus :
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:53:12PM +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/18/2017 02:17 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
 Am 18.07.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Hans Verkuil :
 
 On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi Hugues,
> 
> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
>> 
>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
>> 
>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
> 
> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it would 
> be
> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor.  The original 
> driver
> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816).  There are
> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are
> differences in the register layout.  I would go for a separate driver, we
> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about 
> possible
> regressions.  I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able
> to test the patch set against regressions.
> 
> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the 
> end
> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done now.
 
 I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to 
 support
 multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).
>>> 
>>> Well,
>>> IMHO the diffs in ov965x are smaller (but untestable because nobody seems
>>> to have an ov9650/52 board) than within the bq27xxx chips, but I can dig out
>>> an old pdata based separate ov9655 driver and extend that to become DT 
>>> compatible.
>>> 
>>> I had abandoned that separate approach in favour of extending the ov965x 
>>> driver.
>>> 
>>> Have to discuss with Hugues how to proceed.
>>> 
>>> BR and thanks,
>>> Nikolaus
>>> 
>> 
>> As Sylwester and Hans, I'm also in flavour of a separate driver, the 
>> fact that register set seems similar but in fact is not and that we 
>> cannot test for non-regression of 9650/52 are killer for me to continue 
>> on a single driver.
>> We can now restart from a new fresh state of the art sensor driver 
>> getting rid of legacy (pdata, old gpio, etc...).
> 
> Agreed. I bet the result will look cleaner indeed although this wasn't one
> of the complex drivers.

I finally managed to find the bug why mplayer did select-timeout on the GTA04.
Was a bug in pinmux setup of the GTA04 for the omap3isp.

And I have resurrected our years old 3.12 camera driver, which was based on the
MT9P031 code. It was already separate from ov9650/52.

I have extended it to support DT by including some parts of Hugues' work.

It still needs some cleanup and discussion but will be a simple patch (one
for ov9655.c + Kconfig + Makefile) and one for bindings (I hope it includes
all your comments).

I will post v1 in the next days.

BR,
Nikolaus

Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add support of OV9655 camera

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Hi,

> Am 18.07.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Sakari Ailus :
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:53:12PM +, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/18/2017 02:17 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
 Am 18.07.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Hans Verkuil :
 
 On 12/07/17 22:01, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi Hugues,
> 
> On 07/03/2017 11:16 AM, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>> This patchset enables OV9655 camera support.
>> 
>> OV9655 support has been tested using STM32F4DIS-CAM extension board
>> plugged on connector P1 of STM32F746G-DISCO board.
>> Due to lack of OV9650/52 hardware support, the modified related code
>> could not have been checked for non-regression.
>> 
>> First patches upgrade current support of OV9650/52 to prepare then
>> introduction of OV9655 variant patch.
>> Because of OV9655 register set slightly different from OV9650/9652,
>> not all of the driver features are supported (controls). Supported
>> resolutions are limited to VGA, QVGA, QQVGA.
>> Supported format is limited to RGB565.
>> Controls are limited to color bar test pattern for test purpose.
> 
> I appreciate your efforts towards making a common driver but IMO it would 
> be
> better to create a separate driver for the OV9655 sensor.  The original 
> driver
> is 1576 lines of code, your patch set adds half of that (816).  There are
> significant differences in the feature set of both sensors, there are
> differences in the register layout.  I would go for a separate driver, we
> would then have code easier to follow and wouldn't need to worry about 
> possible
> regressions.  I'm afraid I have lost the camera module and won't be able
> to test the patch set against regressions.
> 
> IMHO from maintenance POV it's better to make a separate driver. In the 
> end
> of the day we wouldn't be adding much more code than it is being done now.
 
 I agree. We do not have great experiences in the past with trying to 
 support
 multiple variants in a single driver (unless the diffs are truly small).
>>> 
>>> Well,
>>> IMHO the diffs in ov965x are smaller (but untestable because nobody seems
>>> to have an ov9650/52 board) than within the bq27xxx chips, but I can dig out
>>> an old pdata based separate ov9655 driver and extend that to become DT 
>>> compatible.
>>> 
>>> I had abandoned that separate approach in favour of extending the ov965x 
>>> driver.
>>> 
>>> Have to discuss with Hugues how to proceed.
>>> 
>>> BR and thanks,
>>> Nikolaus
>>> 
>> 
>> As Sylwester and Hans, I'm also in flavour of a separate driver, the 
>> fact that register set seems similar but in fact is not and that we 
>> cannot test for non-regression of 9650/52 are killer for me to continue 
>> on a single driver.
>> We can now restart from a new fresh state of the art sensor driver 
>> getting rid of legacy (pdata, old gpio, etc...).
> 
> Agreed. I bet the result will look cleaner indeed although this wasn't one
> of the complex drivers.

I finally managed to find the bug why mplayer did select-timeout on the GTA04.
Was a bug in pinmux setup of the GTA04 for the omap3isp.

And I have resurrected our years old 3.12 camera driver, which was based on the
MT9P031 code. It was already separate from ov9650/52.

I have extended it to support DT by including some parts of Hugues' work.

It still needs some cleanup and discussion but will be a simple patch (one
for ov9655.c + Kconfig + Makefile) and one for bindings (I hope it includes
all your comments).

I will post v1 in the next days.

BR,
Nikolaus