lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v5 6/9] media: tegra: Add Tegra210 Video input driver
From
Date

On 3/31/20 9:40 AM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
>
> On 3/31/20 4:52 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 01:27:19PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>> On 3/31/20 1:10 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:56:57PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/20 12:32 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:59:15PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/20 12:03 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:52:32AM -0700, Sowjanya Komatineni
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tegra210 contains a powerful Video Input (VI) hardware controller
>>>>>>>>> which can support up to 6 MIPI CSI camera sensors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Each Tegra CSI port can be one-to-one mapped to VI channel and
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> capture from an external camera sensor connected to CSI or from
>>>>>>>>> built-in test pattern generator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tegra210 supports built-in test pattern generator from CSI to VI.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This patch adds a V4L2 media controller and capture driver
>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>> for Tegra210 built-in CSI to VI test pattern generator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/Kconfig              | 2 +
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/Makefile             | 1 +
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/Kconfig        | 10 +
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/Makefile       | 8 +
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/TODO           | 10 +
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-common.h | 263 +++++++
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-csi.c    | 522 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-csi.h    | 118 ++++
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-vi.c     | 1058
>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-vi.h     | 83 +++
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-video.c  | 129 ++++
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-video.h  | 32 +
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra210.c     | 754
>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>   drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra210.h     | 192 +++++
>>>>>>>> Why staging? Are there reasons not to aim this to the kernel
>>>>>>>> proper right
>>>>>>>> away? If you only support TPG, the driver may not have too many
>>>>>>>> (if any)
>>>>>>>> real users anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   14 files changed, 3182 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/Kconfig
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/Makefile
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/TODO
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-common.h
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-csi.c
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-csi.h
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-vi.c
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-vi.h
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-video.c
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra-video.h
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra210.c
>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/tegra/tegra210.h
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +static int tegra_channel_g_input(struct file *file, void *priv,
>>>>>>>>> +                               unsigned int *i)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +      *i = 0;
>>>>>>>>> +      return 0;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static int tegra_channel_s_input(struct file *file, void *priv,
>>>>>>>>> +                               unsigned int input)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +      if (input > 0)
>>>>>>>>> +              return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +      return 0;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> Please see patchset on topic "v4l2-dev/ioctl: Add
>>>>>>>> V4L2_CAP_IO_MC" on
>>>>>>>> linux-media; it's relevant here, too.
>>>>>>> No, it isn't. The pipeline is controlled by the driver, not by
>>>>>>> userspace.
>>>>>>> This is a regular video capture driver, not an ISP driver.
>>>>>> I don't think that really makes a difference, whether a device is
>>>>>> an ISP or
>>>>>> not, but instead what does is whether there is something to
>>>>>> control in its
>>>>>> pipeline that cannot be generally done through the regular V4L2
>>>>>> interface.
>>>>>> Even plain CSI-2 receiver drivers should be media device centric
>>>>>> these days
>>>>>> as doing otherwise excludes using a range of sensor drivers with
>>>>>> them,
>>>>>> including any possible future support for e.g. sensor embedded data.
>>>>>>
>>>>> We've been back and forth on this before for this driver. I see no
>>>>> reason to make things
>>>>> complicated, these are simple video pipelines for video capture.
>>>>> Making this media
>>>>> device centric means that existing software using the BSP version
>>>>> of this driver require
>>>>> a full rewrite, which is not desirable.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we are going to require CSI receiver drivers to be media
>>>>> centric, then that's a
>>>>> major departure of existing practice. And something that needs to
>>>>> be discussed first,
>>>> I'd be happy to discuss that.
>>>>
>>>> Either way, the current design is problematic as it excludes a
>>>> range of
>>>> camera sensors being used with the driver --- addressing of which
>>>> requires
>>>> converting the driver MC centric. If the driver is merged to
>>>> mainline, then
>>>> the user might face a Kconfig option or a module parameter to choose
>>>> between the two --- this defines uAPI behaviour after all.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to avoid that in the future is to make it MC-centric
>>>> right
>>>> away.
>>>>
>>>>> since that will require that support for each csi receiver driver
>>>>> is added to libcamera.
>>>>> Is libcamera ready for that? Are common applications using
>>>>> libcamera yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, if NVIDIA decides that this is worth the effort, then I
>>>>> have no objection.
>>>>> But I don't think it is something we should require at this stage.
>>>> Works for me. But in that case NVIDIA should also be aware that
>>>> doing so
>>>> has consequences.
>>>>
>>>> We also haven't discussed what to do with old V4L2-centric drivers
>>>> which
>>>> you'd use with sensors that expose their own subdevs. The
>>>> proportion of all
>>>> sensors might not be large currently but it is almost certainly
>>>> bound to
>>>> grow in the future.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, Intel ipu3-cio2 CSI-2 receiver driver is MC-centric e.g. for the
>>>> above reasons. Libcamera supports it currently. I'll let Laurent
>>>> (cc'd)
>>>> comment on the details.
>>> I think it would be good to at least describe in some detail what
>>> you gain
>>> by taking the media centric route, and what the obstacles are (loss
>>> of compatibility
>>> with existing applications, requiring libcamera support).
>> In this case the main gain is control of the camera sensor. Sensors can
>> appear as simple when you don't look too closely at them, but many
>> sensors (especially the ones modelled after SMIA++ and the now standard
>> - and open! - MIPI CCS specification) have 3 locations to perform
>> cropping (analog, digital and output), and 3 locations to perform
>> scaling (binning, skipping, and full-featured scaler). All of these need
>> to be controlled by userspace one way or another if you want to
>> implement proper camera algorithms, which those platforms target.
> Thanks Laurent/Sakari/Hans.
>
> Based on discussion, seems like its good to change driver now to
> media-centric rather than later.
>
> As Jetson is devkit and custom camera sensor module meeting spec can
> be used, its good to let sensor control to user space.
>
> Will look into and update to use media-centric APIs.
Will discuss this internally and will get back on this...
>>
>>> My personal feeling has always been that for ISP drivers the pros of
>>> making
>>> a media-centric driver outweigh the cons, but that for a standard
>>> video capture
>>> pipeline without complex processing blocks the cons outweigh the pros.
>>>
>>> This might change if libcamera becomes widely used, but we're not
>>> there yet.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I am not opposed to having a kernel config option for
>>> drivers
>>> like this that select the media-centric API vs a regular API, if
>>> that can be
>>> done without too much work. If you need full control for your
>>> embedded system,
>>> then you enable the option. If you want full compatibility with
>>> existing
>>> applications, then disable it.
>> How would distributions be supposed to handle those ? That could in the
>> end need to be a per-driver option, and it would be very messy. Maybe
>> it's unavoidable, I'm trying to figure out a way to avoid such an option
>> for sensor drivers, to decide to expose them as a single subdev or
>> multiple subdevs in order to support multiple streams CSI-2 streams, and
>> I'm not sure I'll succeed.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Laurent Pinchart

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-31 20:34    [W:0.117 / U:1.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site