[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y39Vx6L7MovBxOfs@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 13:30:15 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Dorota Czaplejewicz <dorota.czaplejewicz@...i.sm>
Cc: Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@...il.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...i.sm, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/1 RESEND] media: imx: Round line size to 4 bytes
Hi Dorota,
On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 01:38:34PM +0100, Dorota Czaplejewicz wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 16:30:59 +0200 Dorota Czaplejewicz wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 11:28:57 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I would also very much appreciate feedback from NXP on this. There's a
> > > risk of ill side-effects that I would prefer ruling out very clearly.
> >
> > I posted a question on the NXP forum: https://community.nxp.com/t5/i-MX-Processors/i-MX8MQ-CSI-line-size-constraint-documentation-mistake/m-p/1538629#M196448
> >
>
> This question received a reply from NXP today: https://community.nxp.com/t5/i-MX-Processors/i-MX8MQ-CSI-line-size-constraint-documentation-mistake/m-p/1546872/highlight/true#M197067
>
> Quoting NXP's answer:
>
> > Do I understand correctly, that streams divisible by 4×4 will work on other i.MX8 hardware too? - Yes
> > Will those kind of resolutions work on i.MX7 series CSI hardware? - Yes
>
> which implies no bad side effects the way I read it. Is this
> sufficient for the kernel?
Ideally I'd like to test that on i.MX7 but I don't think I'll have time
to do so in the near future. I don't want to block the patch on this, so
I'm fine merging it, but I'd like a comment in the code that explains
why it's safe to depart from the documentation.
Also, the discussion on the NXP forum said that a width that is a
multiple of 4 bytes but not a multiple of 8 bytes works only if the
height is also a multiple of 4. I don't see that constraint being
enforced in the code, am I missing something ?
You mentioned in the forum that you tried 1052x779 and that failed. How
did it fail ? Have you also tried 1052x778 ?
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dorota Czaplejewicz <dorota.czaplejewicz@...i.sm>
> > > > ---
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > the Librem 5 is using an out-of-tree driver for s5k3l6xx, and
> > > > rounding to 4 is optimal to operate it.
> > > >
> > > > This revision improves the commit message.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Dorota Czaplejewicz
> > > >
> > > > drivers/staging/media/imx/imx7-media-csi.c | 4 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/imx/imx7-media-csi.c b/drivers/staging/media/imx/imx7-media-csi.c
> > > > index a0553c24cce4..af821b410c3f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/media/imx/imx7-media-csi.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/media/imx/imx7-media-csi.c
> > > > @@ -999,10 +999,10 @@ static int imx7_csi_mbus_fmt_to_pix_fmt(struct v4l2_pix_format *pix,
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /* Round up width for minimum burst size */
> > > > - width = round_up(mbus->width, 8);
> > > > + width = round_up(mbus->width, 4);
> > > >
> > > > /* Round up stride for IDMAC line start address alignment */
> > > > - stride = round_up((width * cc->bpp) >> 3, 8);
> > > > + stride = round_up((width * cc->bpp) >> 3, 4);
> > > >
> > > > pix->width = width;
> > > > pix->height = mbus->height;
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists