| Message ID | b580ac9d-5ae4-29ce-c81a-a1f98b1d953b@xs4all.nl (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | imx219: selection compliance fixes | expand |
Hi Hans, On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the > supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, > so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS > always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. I actually introduced this with e6d4ef7d58aa ("media: i2c: imx219: Implement get_selection") > > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> > --- > drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > .width = 3280, > .height = 2464, > .crop = { > - .left = 0, > - .top = 0, > + .left = 8, > + .top = 8, Mmmm, why this change ? This values are used to report V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP rectangle, which according to the documentation is defined as "Crop rectangle. Defines the cropped area." (not a much extensive description :) Clearly this is a faulty definition, and I know from experience how hard is proving to define pixel array properties and in which extent the documentation has to go: https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/2020-June/009115.html My understanding is that target should report the current crop rectangle, defined from the rectangle retrieved with the V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT target, which, according documentation reports the: "Suggested cropping rectangle that covers the “whole picture”. This includes only active pixels and excludes other non-active pixels such as black pixels" The TGT_CROP_DEFAULT then reports the active pixel array portion, and needs to be defined in respect to the TGT_NATIVE_SIZE, which reports the dimensions of the whole pixel matrix, including non-active pixels, optical blanks active and non-active pixels. The TGT_CROP rectangle is hence defined from the CROP_DEFAULT one, and if the 'whole active area' is selected, its top-left corner is placed in position (0, 0) (what's the point of defining it in respect to an area which cannot be read anyway ?) Unless TGT_CROP should be defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE rectangle too, but that's not specified anywhere. Anyway, those selection targets badly apply to image sensors, are ill-defined as the definition of active pixels, optical blank (active and non-active) pixels is not provided anywhere, and it's not specified anywhere what is the reference area for each of those rectangles, so I might very well got them wrongly. > .width = 3280, > .height = 2464 > }, > @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > .width = 1920, > .height = 1080, > .crop = { > - .left = 680, > - .top = 692, > + .left = 8 + 680, > + .top = 8 + 692, > .width = 1920, > .height = 1080 > }, > @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > .width = 1640, > .height = 1232, > .crop = { > - .left = 0, > - .top = 0, > + .left = 8, > + .top = 8, > .width = 3280, > .height = 2464 > }, > @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > .width = 640, > .height = 480, > .crop = { > - .left = 1000, > - .top = 752, > + .left = 8 + 1000, > + .top = 8 + 752, > .width = 1280, > .height = 960 > }, > @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > return 0; > > case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: > + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: Still not getting what is the purpose of two targets if the "always have to go together" :) > sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; > sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; > sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH; > -- > 2.27.0 >
Hi Jacopo, On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:31:46PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the > > supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, > > so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > > > Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS > > always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > I actually introduced this with > e6d4ef7d58aa ("media: i2c: imx219: Implement get_selection") > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> > > --- > > drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 3280, > > .height = 2464, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 0, > > - .top = 0, > > + .left = 8, > > + .top = 8, > > Mmmm, why this change ? > This values are used to report V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP rectangle, which > according to the documentation is defined as > "Crop rectangle. Defines the cropped area." > (not a much extensive description :) > > Clearly this is a faulty definition, and I know from experience how > hard is proving to define pixel array properties and in which extent > the documentation has to go: > https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/2020-June/009115.html > > My understanding is that target should report the current crop > rectangle, defined from the rectangle retrieved with the > V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT target, which, according documentation > reports the: > "Suggested cropping rectangle that covers the “whole picture”. > This includes only active pixels and excludes other non-active pixels such > as black pixels" > > The TGT_CROP_DEFAULT then reports the active pixel array portion, and > needs to be defined in respect to the TGT_NATIVE_SIZE, which reports > the dimensions of the whole pixel matrix, including non-active pixels, > optical blanks active and non-active pixels. > > The TGT_CROP rectangle is hence defined from the CROP_DEFAULT one, and > if the 'whole active area' is selected, its top-left corner is placed > in position (0, 0) (what's the point of defining it in respect to an > area which cannot be read anyway ?) > > Unless TGT_CROP should be defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE > rectangle too, but that's not specified anywhere. > > Anyway, those selection targets badly apply to image sensors, are > ill-defined as the definition of active pixels, optical blank (active > and non-active) pixels is not provided anywhere, and it's not specified > anywhere what is the reference area for each of those rectangles, so I > might very well got them wrongly. My understanding is that both TGT_CROP_DEFAULT and TGT_CROP_BOUNDS are relative to TGT_NATIVE_SIZE. BOUNDS defines all the pixels that can be captured, including optical black and invalid pixels, while DEFAULT defines the active area, excluding optical black and invalida pixels. To put it another way, DEFAULT is what the kernel recommends applications to use if they have no specific requirement and/or no specific knowledge about the sensor. I fully agree this is very under-documented, which also means that my understanding may be wrong :-) > > .width = 3280, > > .height = 2464 > > }, > > @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 1920, > > .height = 1080, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 680, > > - .top = 692, > > + .left = 8 + 680, > > + .top = 8 + 692, > > .width = 1920, > > .height = 1080 > > }, > > @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 1640, > > .height = 1232, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 0, > > - .top = 0, > > + .left = 8, > > + .top = 8, > > .width = 3280, > > .height = 2464 > > }, > > @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 640, > > .height = 480, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 1000, > > - .top = 752, > > + .left = 8 + 1000, > > + .top = 8 + 752, > > .width = 1280, > > .height = 960 > > }, > > @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > return 0; > > > > case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: > > + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: > > Still not getting what is the purpose of two targets if the "always > have to go together" :) > > > sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; > > sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; > > sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH;
Hi Laurent, On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 02:49:38AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:31:46PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > Hi Hans, > > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the > > > supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, > > > so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > > > > > Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS > > > always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > > > I actually introduced this with > > e6d4ef7d58aa ("media: i2c: imx219: Implement get_selection") > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> > > > --- > > > drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > > index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > > @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > > .width = 3280, > > > .height = 2464, > > > .crop = { > > > - .left = 0, > > > - .top = 0, > > > + .left = 8, > > > + .top = 8, > > > > Mmmm, why this change ? > > This values are used to report V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP rectangle, which > > according to the documentation is defined as > > "Crop rectangle. Defines the cropped area." > > (not a much extensive description :) > > > > Clearly this is a faulty definition, and I know from experience how > > hard is proving to define pixel array properties and in which extent > > the documentation has to go: > > https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/2020-June/009115.html > > > > My understanding is that target should report the current crop > > rectangle, defined from the rectangle retrieved with the > > V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT target, which, according documentation > > reports the: > > "Suggested cropping rectangle that covers the “whole picture”. > > This includes only active pixels and excludes other non-active pixels such > > as black pixels" > > > > The TGT_CROP_DEFAULT then reports the active pixel array portion, and > > needs to be defined in respect to the TGT_NATIVE_SIZE, which reports > > the dimensions of the whole pixel matrix, including non-active pixels, > > optical blanks active and non-active pixels. > > > > The TGT_CROP rectangle is hence defined from the CROP_DEFAULT one, and > > if the 'whole active area' is selected, its top-left corner is placed > > in position (0, 0) (what's the point of defining it in respect to an > > area which cannot be read anyway ?) > > > > Unless TGT_CROP should be defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE > > rectangle too, but that's not specified anywhere. > > > > Anyway, those selection targets badly apply to image sensors, are > > ill-defined as the definition of active pixels, optical blank (active > > and non-active) pixels is not provided anywhere, and it's not specified > > anywhere what is the reference area for each of those rectangles, so I > > might very well got them wrongly. > > My understanding is that both TGT_CROP_DEFAULT and TGT_CROP_BOUNDS are > relative to TGT_NATIVE_SIZE. BOUNDS defines all the pixels that can be And what is TGT_CROP reference in your understanding ? > captured, including optical black and invalid pixels, while DEFAULT > defines the active area, excluding optical black and invalida pixels. To > put it another way, DEFAULT is what the kernel recommends applications > to use if they have no specific requirement and/or no specific knowledge > about the sensor. > > I fully agree this is very under-documented, which also means that my > understanding may be wrong :-) With some consensus on this interpretation I would be happy to update the documentation. I already considered that, but the selection API does not apply to image sensors only, and giving a description which is about the pixel array properties might be not totally opportune as it would rule out other devices like bridges or muxers. > > > > .width = 3280, > > > .height = 2464 > > > }, > > > @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > > .width = 1920, > > > .height = 1080, > > > .crop = { > > > - .left = 680, > > > - .top = 692, > > > + .left = 8 + 680, > > > + .top = 8 + 692, > > > .width = 1920, > > > .height = 1080 > > > }, > > > @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > > .width = 1640, > > > .height = 1232, > > > .crop = { > > > - .left = 0, > > > - .top = 0, > > > + .left = 8, > > > + .top = 8, > > > .width = 3280, > > > .height = 2464 > > > }, > > > @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > > .width = 640, > > > .height = 480, > > > .crop = { > > > - .left = 1000, > > > - .top = 752, > > > + .left = 8 + 1000, > > > + .top = 8 + 752, > > > .width = 1280, > > > .height = 960 > > > }, > > > @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > > return 0; > > > > > > case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: > > > + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: > > > > Still not getting what is the purpose of two targets if the "always > > have to go together" :) > > > > > sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; > > > sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; > > > sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH; > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart
On 15/07/2020 09:19, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > Hi Laurent, > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 02:49:38AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Hi Jacopo, >> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:31:46PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: >>> Hi Hans, >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >>>> The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the >>>> supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, >>>> so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. >>>> >>>> Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS >>>> always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. >>> >>> I actually introduced this with >>> e6d4ef7d58aa ("media: i2c: imx219: Implement get_selection") >>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- >>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c >>>> index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c >>>> @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { >>>> .width = 3280, >>>> .height = 2464, >>>> .crop = { >>>> - .left = 0, >>>> - .top = 0, >>>> + .left = 8, >>>> + .top = 8, >>> >>> Mmmm, why this change ? >>> This values are used to report V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP rectangle, which >>> according to the documentation is defined as >>> "Crop rectangle. Defines the cropped area." >>> (not a much extensive description :) Unless changed by calling S_SELECTION(TGT_CROP) the initial crop is equal to TGT_CROP_DEFAULT, and but TGT_CROP and TGT_CROP_DEFAULT shall be inside TGT_CROP_BOUNDS. CROP_BOUNDS may be larger than CROP_DEFAULT and describes the whole area from which you can crop. I.e. in the case of sensors you can set the crop rectangle to include optical blanks active pixels. In this driver the initial TGT_CROP rectangle as specified in supported_modes (aligned with the top-left pixel) was outside CROP_BOUNDS (centered) and also a mismatch with CROP_DEFAULT (also centered). >>> >>> Clearly this is a faulty definition, and I know from experience how >>> hard is proving to define pixel array properties and in which extent >>> the documentation has to go: >>> https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/2020-June/009115.html >>> >>> My understanding is that target should report the current crop >>> rectangle, defined from the rectangle retrieved with the >>> V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT target, which, according documentation >>> reports the: >>> "Suggested cropping rectangle that covers the “whole picture”. >>> This includes only active pixels and excludes other non-active pixels such >>> as black pixels" >>> >>> The TGT_CROP_DEFAULT then reports the active pixel array portion, and >>> needs to be defined in respect to the TGT_NATIVE_SIZE, which reports >>> the dimensions of the whole pixel matrix, including non-active pixels, >>> optical blanks active and non-active pixels. The relationship between NATIVE_SIZE and CROP_BOUNDS is not properly defined, but I would expect that CROP_BOUNDS is inside the NATIVE_SIZE target rectangle. If NATIVE_SIZE is larger than BOUNDS, then I would expect that the additional margins are pixels that are invalid or otherwise useless. The hard rule though is that you can crop anywhere within the CROP_BOUNDS area. Historically CROP_BOUNDS originated with analog SDTV video capture where it was possible to capture more data than just the typical 720x576/480 PAL/NTSC active video area. Analog video was often overscanned, i.e. there was more video data outside the 'active' video area. That was how CRTs worked. So you could move the crop window around within the CROP_BOUNDS area, or just capture the full CROP_BOUNDS are. Although this was often poorly tested/implemented. The bttv driver is one of the few that could do this. This is actually simplified since you could do weird things with the horizontal sample rate as well, effectively changing the pixel aspect ratio, making things really complicated. It's analog video so while the video lines were discrete, horizontally you are just sampling a waveform, so you could sample at different rates if you wanted to. I doubt anyone ever used it since doing that would give you a huge headache :-) With digital video interfaces (HDMI, DVI, SDI, DP, etc.) that no longer applies and for those receivers the initial CROP/CROP_DEFAULT/CROP_BOUNDS rectangles are all the same, e.g. 1920x1080 for 1080p HDMI video. >>> >>> The TGT_CROP rectangle is hence defined from the CROP_DEFAULT one, and >>> if the 'whole active area' is selected, its top-left corner is placed >>> in position (0, 0) (what's the point of defining it in respect to an >>> area which cannot be read anyway ?) >>> >>> Unless TGT_CROP should be defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE >>> rectangle too, but that's not specified anywhere. >>> >>> Anyway, those selection targets badly apply to image sensors, are >>> ill-defined as the definition of active pixels, optical blank (active >>> and non-active) pixels is not provided anywhere, and it's not specified >>> anywhere what is the reference area for each of those rectangles, so I >>> might very well got them wrongly. >> >> My understanding is that both TGT_CROP_DEFAULT and TGT_CROP_BOUNDS are >> relative to TGT_NATIVE_SIZE. BOUNDS defines all the pixels that can be > > And what is TGT_CROP reference in your understanding ? That's the rectangle you are actually cropping. Initially CROP == CROP_DEFAULT and CROP shall always be inside CROP_BOUNDS. And CROP_BOUNDS shall be equal or larger than CROP_DEFAULT. > >> captured, including optical black and invalid pixels, while DEFAULT >> defines the active area, excluding optical black and invalida pixels. To >> put it another way, DEFAULT is what the kernel recommends applications >> to use if they have no specific requirement and/or no specific knowledge >> about the sensor. >> >> I fully agree this is very under-documented, which also means that my >> understanding may be wrong :-) > > With some consensus on this interpretation I would be happy to update > the documentation. I already considered that, but the selection API > does not apply to image sensors only, and giving a description which > is about the pixel array properties might be not totally opportune as > it would rule out other devices like bridges or muxers. And m2m devices like codecs. Regards, Hans > >> >>>> .width = 3280, >>>> .height = 2464 >>>> }, >>>> @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { >>>> .width = 1920, >>>> .height = 1080, >>>> .crop = { >>>> - .left = 680, >>>> - .top = 692, >>>> + .left = 8 + 680, >>>> + .top = 8 + 692, >>>> .width = 1920, >>>> .height = 1080 >>>> }, >>>> @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { >>>> .width = 1640, >>>> .height = 1232, >>>> .crop = { >>>> - .left = 0, >>>> - .top = 0, >>>> + .left = 8, >>>> + .top = 8, >>>> .width = 3280, >>>> .height = 2464 >>>> }, >>>> @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { >>>> .width = 640, >>>> .height = 480, >>>> .crop = { >>>> - .left = 1000, >>>> - .top = 752, >>>> + .left = 8 + 1000, >>>> + .top = 8 + 752, >>>> .width = 1280, >>>> .height = 960 >>>> }, >>>> @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, >>>> return 0; >>>> >>>> case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: >>>> + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: >>> >>> Still not getting what is the purpose of two targets if the "always >>> have to go together" :) >>> >>>> sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; >>>> sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; >>>> sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH; >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Laurent Pinchart
Hi Hans, On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 11:48:19AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 15/07/2020 09:19, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 02:49:38AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:31:46PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > >>>> The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the > >>>> supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, > >>>> so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. > >>>> > >>>> Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS > >>>> always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. > >>> > >>> I actually introduced this with > >>> e6d4ef7d58aa ("media: i2c: imx219: Implement get_selection") > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > >>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > >>>> index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > >>>> @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > >>>> .width = 3280, > >>>> .height = 2464, > >>>> .crop = { > >>>> - .left = 0, > >>>> - .top = 0, > >>>> + .left = 8, > >>>> + .top = 8, > >>> > >>> Mmmm, why this change ? > >>> This values are used to report V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP rectangle, which > >>> according to the documentation is defined as > >>> "Crop rectangle. Defines the cropped area." > >>> (not a much extensive description :) > > Unless changed by calling S_SELECTION(TGT_CROP) the initial crop is equal > to TGT_CROP_DEFAULT, and but TGT_CROP and TGT_CROP_DEFAULT shall be inside > TGT_CROP_BOUNDS. CROP_BOUNDS may be larger than CROP_DEFAULT and describes > the whole area from which you can crop. I.e. in the case of sensors you can > set the crop rectangle to include optical blanks active pixels. > > In this driver the initial TGT_CROP rectangle as specified in supported_modes > (aligned with the top-left pixel) was outside CROP_BOUNDS (centered) and also > a mismatch with CROP_DEFAULT (also centered). > > >>> Clearly this is a faulty definition, and I know from experience how > >>> hard is proving to define pixel array properties and in which extent > >>> the documentation has to go: > >>> https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/2020-June/009115.html > >>> > >>> My understanding is that target should report the current crop > >>> rectangle, defined from the rectangle retrieved with the > >>> V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT target, which, according documentation > >>> reports the: > >>> "Suggested cropping rectangle that covers the “whole picture”. > >>> This includes only active pixels and excludes other non-active pixels such > >>> as black pixels" > >>> > >>> The TGT_CROP_DEFAULT then reports the active pixel array portion, and > >>> needs to be defined in respect to the TGT_NATIVE_SIZE, which reports > >>> the dimensions of the whole pixel matrix, including non-active pixels, > >>> optical blanks active and non-active pixels. > > The relationship between NATIVE_SIZE and CROP_BOUNDS is not properly defined, > but I would expect that CROP_BOUNDS is inside the NATIVE_SIZE target rectangle. > > If NATIVE_SIZE is larger than BOUNDS, then I would expect that the additional > margins are pixels that are invalid or otherwise useless. > > The hard rule though is that you can crop anywhere within the CROP_BOUNDS area. > > Historically CROP_BOUNDS originated with analog SDTV video capture where it was > possible to capture more data than just the typical 720x576/480 PAL/NTSC active > video area. Analog video was often overscanned, i.e. there was more video data > outside the 'active' video area. That was how CRTs worked. So you could move the > crop window around within the CROP_BOUNDS area, or just capture the full CROP_BOUNDS > are. Although this was often poorly tested/implemented. The bttv driver is one of > the few that could do this. > > This is actually simplified since you could do weird things with the horizontal > sample rate as well, effectively changing the pixel aspect ratio, making things > really complicated. It's analog video so while the video lines were discrete, > horizontally you are just sampling a waveform, so you could sample at different > rates if you wanted to. I doubt anyone ever used it since doing that would give > you a huge headache :-) > > With digital video interfaces (HDMI, DVI, SDI, DP, etc.) that no longer applies and > for those receivers the initial CROP/CROP_DEFAULT/CROP_BOUNDS rectangles are all > the same, e.g. 1920x1080 for 1080p HDMI video. > > >>> > >>> The TGT_CROP rectangle is hence defined from the CROP_DEFAULT one, and > >>> if the 'whole active area' is selected, its top-left corner is placed > >>> in position (0, 0) (what's the point of defining it in respect to an > >>> area which cannot be read anyway ?) > >>> > >>> Unless TGT_CROP should be defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE > >>> rectangle too, but that's not specified anywhere. > >>> > >>> Anyway, those selection targets badly apply to image sensors, are > >>> ill-defined as the definition of active pixels, optical blank (active > >>> and non-active) pixels is not provided anywhere, and it's not specified > >>> anywhere what is the reference area for each of those rectangles, so I > >>> might very well got them wrongly. > >> > >> My understanding is that both TGT_CROP_DEFAULT and TGT_CROP_BOUNDS are > >> relative to TGT_NATIVE_SIZE. BOUNDS defines all the pixels that can be > > > > And what is TGT_CROP reference in your understanding ? > > That's the rectangle you are actually cropping. Initially CROP == CROP_DEFAULT > and CROP shall always be inside CROP_BOUNDS. And CROP_BOUNDS shall be equal > or larger than CROP_DEFAULT. I think you've missed the point of Jacopo's question. He wasn't asking if CROP needed to be inside CROP_BOUNDS, but what the reference was for the left and top coordinates. That is, for all the crop rectangles, what is the location of the (0,0) point ? Do they all refer to the same location, or are they relative to each other ? This is not defined. > >> captured, including optical black and invalid pixels, while DEFAULT > >> defines the active area, excluding optical black and invalida pixels. To > >> put it another way, DEFAULT is what the kernel recommends applications > >> to use if they have no specific requirement and/or no specific knowledge > >> about the sensor. > >> > >> I fully agree this is very under-documented, which also means that my > >> understanding may be wrong :-) > > > > With some consensus on this interpretation I would be happy to update > > the documentation. I already considered that, but the selection API > > does not apply to image sensors only, and giving a description which > > is about the pixel array properties might be not totally opportune as > > it would rule out other devices like bridges or muxers. > > And m2m devices like codecs. > > >>>> .width = 3280, > >>>> .height = 2464 > >>>> }, > >>>> @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > >>>> .width = 1920, > >>>> .height = 1080, > >>>> .crop = { > >>>> - .left = 680, > >>>> - .top = 692, > >>>> + .left = 8 + 680, > >>>> + .top = 8 + 692, > >>>> .width = 1920, > >>>> .height = 1080 > >>>> }, > >>>> @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > >>>> .width = 1640, > >>>> .height = 1232, > >>>> .crop = { > >>>> - .left = 0, > >>>> - .top = 0, > >>>> + .left = 8, > >>>> + .top = 8, > >>>> .width = 3280, > >>>> .height = 2464 > >>>> }, > >>>> @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > >>>> .width = 640, > >>>> .height = 480, > >>>> .crop = { > >>>> - .left = 1000, > >>>> - .top = 752, > >>>> + .left = 8 + 1000, > >>>> + .top = 8 + 752, > >>>> .width = 1280, > >>>> .height = 960 > >>>> }, > >>>> @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > >>>> return 0; > >>>> > >>>> case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: > >>>> + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: > >>> > >>> Still not getting what is the purpose of two targets if the "always > >>> have to go together" :) > >>> > >>>> sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; > >>>> sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; > >>>> sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH;
On 16/07/2020 14:59, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 11:48:19AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >> On 15/07/2020 09:19, Jacopo Mondi wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 02:49:38AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:31:46PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >>>>>> The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the >>>>>> supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, >>>>>> so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS >>>>>> always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. >>>>> >>>>> I actually introduced this with >>>>> e6d4ef7d58aa ("media: i2c: imx219: Implement get_selection") >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c >>>>>> index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c >>>>>> @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { >>>>>> .width = 3280, >>>>>> .height = 2464, >>>>>> .crop = { >>>>>> - .left = 0, >>>>>> - .top = 0, >>>>>> + .left = 8, >>>>>> + .top = 8, >>>>> >>>>> Mmmm, why this change ? >>>>> This values are used to report V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP rectangle, which >>>>> according to the documentation is defined as >>>>> "Crop rectangle. Defines the cropped area." >>>>> (not a much extensive description :) >> >> Unless changed by calling S_SELECTION(TGT_CROP) the initial crop is equal >> to TGT_CROP_DEFAULT, and but TGT_CROP and TGT_CROP_DEFAULT shall be inside >> TGT_CROP_BOUNDS. CROP_BOUNDS may be larger than CROP_DEFAULT and describes >> the whole area from which you can crop. I.e. in the case of sensors you can >> set the crop rectangle to include optical blanks active pixels. >> >> In this driver the initial TGT_CROP rectangle as specified in supported_modes >> (aligned with the top-left pixel) was outside CROP_BOUNDS (centered) and also >> a mismatch with CROP_DEFAULT (also centered). >> >>>>> Clearly this is a faulty definition, and I know from experience how >>>>> hard is proving to define pixel array properties and in which extent >>>>> the documentation has to go: >>>>> https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/2020-June/009115.html >>>>> >>>>> My understanding is that target should report the current crop >>>>> rectangle, defined from the rectangle retrieved with the >>>>> V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT target, which, according documentation >>>>> reports the: >>>>> "Suggested cropping rectangle that covers the “whole picture”. >>>>> This includes only active pixels and excludes other non-active pixels such >>>>> as black pixels" >>>>> >>>>> The TGT_CROP_DEFAULT then reports the active pixel array portion, and >>>>> needs to be defined in respect to the TGT_NATIVE_SIZE, which reports >>>>> the dimensions of the whole pixel matrix, including non-active pixels, >>>>> optical blanks active and non-active pixels. >> >> The relationship between NATIVE_SIZE and CROP_BOUNDS is not properly defined, >> but I would expect that CROP_BOUNDS is inside the NATIVE_SIZE target rectangle. >> >> If NATIVE_SIZE is larger than BOUNDS, then I would expect that the additional >> margins are pixels that are invalid or otherwise useless. >> >> The hard rule though is that you can crop anywhere within the CROP_BOUNDS area. >> >> Historically CROP_BOUNDS originated with analog SDTV video capture where it was >> possible to capture more data than just the typical 720x576/480 PAL/NTSC active >> video area. Analog video was often overscanned, i.e. there was more video data >> outside the 'active' video area. That was how CRTs worked. So you could move the >> crop window around within the CROP_BOUNDS area, or just capture the full CROP_BOUNDS >> are. Although this was often poorly tested/implemented. The bttv driver is one of >> the few that could do this. >> >> This is actually simplified since you could do weird things with the horizontal >> sample rate as well, effectively changing the pixel aspect ratio, making things >> really complicated. It's analog video so while the video lines were discrete, >> horizontally you are just sampling a waveform, so you could sample at different >> rates if you wanted to. I doubt anyone ever used it since doing that would give >> you a huge headache :-) >> >> With digital video interfaces (HDMI, DVI, SDI, DP, etc.) that no longer applies and >> for those receivers the initial CROP/CROP_DEFAULT/CROP_BOUNDS rectangles are all >> the same, e.g. 1920x1080 for 1080p HDMI video. >> >>>>> >>>>> The TGT_CROP rectangle is hence defined from the CROP_DEFAULT one, and >>>>> if the 'whole active area' is selected, its top-left corner is placed >>>>> in position (0, 0) (what's the point of defining it in respect to an >>>>> area which cannot be read anyway ?) >>>>> >>>>> Unless TGT_CROP should be defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE >>>>> rectangle too, but that's not specified anywhere. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, those selection targets badly apply to image sensors, are >>>>> ill-defined as the definition of active pixels, optical blank (active >>>>> and non-active) pixels is not provided anywhere, and it's not specified >>>>> anywhere what is the reference area for each of those rectangles, so I >>>>> might very well got them wrongly. >>>> >>>> My understanding is that both TGT_CROP_DEFAULT and TGT_CROP_BOUNDS are >>>> relative to TGT_NATIVE_SIZE. BOUNDS defines all the pixels that can be >>> >>> And what is TGT_CROP reference in your understanding ? >> >> That's the rectangle you are actually cropping. Initially CROP == CROP_DEFAULT >> and CROP shall always be inside CROP_BOUNDS. And CROP_BOUNDS shall be equal >> or larger than CROP_DEFAULT. > > I think you've missed the point of Jacopo's question. He wasn't asking > if CROP needed to be inside CROP_BOUNDS, but what the reference was for > the left and top coordinates. That is, for all the crop rectangles, what > is the location of the (0,0) point ? Do they all refer to the same > location, or are they relative to each other ? This is not defined. Ah, I misunderstood. For analog video it was actually undefined. It could be anything, although typically the initial crop rectangle was at (0, 0). That meant that the larger BOUNDS area could be at (-8, -8). For sensors nothing is defined at the moment, but IMHO the largest rectangle (i.e. TGT_NATIVE_SIZE) should be at (0, 0). I think negative top-left coordinates are just weird and can potentially cause signedness issues. In any case, all target rectangles are relative to the same point since you need to know where the BOUNDS rectangle is within the larger NATIVE_SIZE rectangle (ugly name BTW), and ditto for CROP/CROP_DEFAULT within the larger CROP_BOUNDS. Regards, Hans > >>>> captured, including optical black and invalid pixels, while DEFAULT >>>> defines the active area, excluding optical black and invalida pixels. To >>>> put it another way, DEFAULT is what the kernel recommends applications >>>> to use if they have no specific requirement and/or no specific knowledge >>>> about the sensor. >>>> >>>> I fully agree this is very under-documented, which also means that my >>>> understanding may be wrong :-) >>> >>> With some consensus on this interpretation I would be happy to update >>> the documentation. I already considered that, but the selection API >>> does not apply to image sensors only, and giving a description which >>> is about the pixel array properties might be not totally opportune as >>> it would rule out other devices like bridges or muxers. >> >> And m2m devices like codecs. >> >>>>>> .width = 3280, >>>>>> .height = 2464 >>>>>> }, >>>>>> @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { >>>>>> .width = 1920, >>>>>> .height = 1080, >>>>>> .crop = { >>>>>> - .left = 680, >>>>>> - .top = 692, >>>>>> + .left = 8 + 680, >>>>>> + .top = 8 + 692, >>>>>> .width = 1920, >>>>>> .height = 1080 >>>>>> }, >>>>>> @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { >>>>>> .width = 1640, >>>>>> .height = 1232, >>>>>> .crop = { >>>>>> - .left = 0, >>>>>> - .top = 0, >>>>>> + .left = 8, >>>>>> + .top = 8, >>>>>> .width = 3280, >>>>>> .height = 2464 >>>>>> }, >>>>>> @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { >>>>>> .width = 640, >>>>>> .height = 480, >>>>>> .crop = { >>>>>> - .left = 1000, >>>>>> - .top = 752, >>>>>> + .left = 8 + 1000, >>>>>> + .top = 8 + 752, >>>>>> .width = 1280, >>>>>> .height = 960 >>>>>> }, >>>>>> @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, >>>>>> return 0; >>>>>> >>>>>> case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: >>>>>> + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: >>>>> >>>>> Still not getting what is the purpose of two targets if the "always >>>>> have to go together" :) >>>>> >>>>>> sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; >>>>>> sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; >>>>>> sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH; >
Hi Hans, On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 03:53:41PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 16/07/2020 14:59, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 11:48:19AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > >> On 15/07/2020 09:19, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 02:49:38AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:31:46PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > >>>>>> The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the > >>>>>> supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, > >>>>>> so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS > >>>>>> always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. > >>>>> > >>>>> I actually introduced this with > >>>>> e6d4ef7d58aa ("media: i2c: imx219: Implement get_selection") > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > >>>>>> index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > >>>>>> @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > >>>>>> .width = 3280, > >>>>>> .height = 2464, > >>>>>> .crop = { > >>>>>> - .left = 0, > >>>>>> - .top = 0, > >>>>>> + .left = 8, > >>>>>> + .top = 8, > >>>>> > >>>>> Mmmm, why this change ? > >>>>> This values are used to report V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP rectangle, which > >>>>> according to the documentation is defined as > >>>>> "Crop rectangle. Defines the cropped area." > >>>>> (not a much extensive description :) > >> > >> Unless changed by calling S_SELECTION(TGT_CROP) the initial crop is equal > >> to TGT_CROP_DEFAULT, and but TGT_CROP and TGT_CROP_DEFAULT shall be inside > >> TGT_CROP_BOUNDS. CROP_BOUNDS may be larger than CROP_DEFAULT and describes > >> the whole area from which you can crop. I.e. in the case of sensors you can > >> set the crop rectangle to include optical blanks active pixels. > >> > >> In this driver the initial TGT_CROP rectangle as specified in supported_modes > >> (aligned with the top-left pixel) was outside CROP_BOUNDS (centered) and also > >> a mismatch with CROP_DEFAULT (also centered). > >> > >>>>> Clearly this is a faulty definition, and I know from experience how > >>>>> hard is proving to define pixel array properties and in which extent > >>>>> the documentation has to go: > >>>>> https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/2020-June/009115.html > >>>>> > >>>>> My understanding is that target should report the current crop > >>>>> rectangle, defined from the rectangle retrieved with the > >>>>> V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT target, which, according documentation > >>>>> reports the: > >>>>> "Suggested cropping rectangle that covers the “whole picture”. > >>>>> This includes only active pixels and excludes other non-active pixels such > >>>>> as black pixels" > >>>>> > >>>>> The TGT_CROP_DEFAULT then reports the active pixel array portion, and > >>>>> needs to be defined in respect to the TGT_NATIVE_SIZE, which reports > >>>>> the dimensions of the whole pixel matrix, including non-active pixels, > >>>>> optical blanks active and non-active pixels. > >> > >> The relationship between NATIVE_SIZE and CROP_BOUNDS is not properly defined, > >> but I would expect that CROP_BOUNDS is inside the NATIVE_SIZE target rectangle. > >> > >> If NATIVE_SIZE is larger than BOUNDS, then I would expect that the additional > >> margins are pixels that are invalid or otherwise useless. > >> > >> The hard rule though is that you can crop anywhere within the CROP_BOUNDS area. > >> > >> Historically CROP_BOUNDS originated with analog SDTV video capture where it was > >> possible to capture more data than just the typical 720x576/480 PAL/NTSC active > >> video area. Analog video was often overscanned, i.e. there was more video data > >> outside the 'active' video area. That was how CRTs worked. So you could move the > >> crop window around within the CROP_BOUNDS area, or just capture the full CROP_BOUNDS > >> are. Although this was often poorly tested/implemented. The bttv driver is one of > >> the few that could do this. > >> > >> This is actually simplified since you could do weird things with the horizontal > >> sample rate as well, effectively changing the pixel aspect ratio, making things > >> really complicated. It's analog video so while the video lines were discrete, > >> horizontally you are just sampling a waveform, so you could sample at different > >> rates if you wanted to. I doubt anyone ever used it since doing that would give > >> you a huge headache :-) > >> > >> With digital video interfaces (HDMI, DVI, SDI, DP, etc.) that no longer applies and > >> for those receivers the initial CROP/CROP_DEFAULT/CROP_BOUNDS rectangles are all > >> the same, e.g. 1920x1080 for 1080p HDMI video. > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> The TGT_CROP rectangle is hence defined from the CROP_DEFAULT one, and > >>>>> if the 'whole active area' is selected, its top-left corner is placed > >>>>> in position (0, 0) (what's the point of defining it in respect to an > >>>>> area which cannot be read anyway ?) > >>>>> > >>>>> Unless TGT_CROP should be defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE > >>>>> rectangle too, but that's not specified anywhere. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anyway, those selection targets badly apply to image sensors, are > >>>>> ill-defined as the definition of active pixels, optical blank (active > >>>>> and non-active) pixels is not provided anywhere, and it's not specified > >>>>> anywhere what is the reference area for each of those rectangles, so I > >>>>> might very well got them wrongly. > >>>> > >>>> My understanding is that both TGT_CROP_DEFAULT and TGT_CROP_BOUNDS are > >>>> relative to TGT_NATIVE_SIZE. BOUNDS defines all the pixels that can be > >>> > >>> And what is TGT_CROP reference in your understanding ? > >> > >> That's the rectangle you are actually cropping. Initially CROP == CROP_DEFAULT > >> and CROP shall always be inside CROP_BOUNDS. And CROP_BOUNDS shall be equal > >> or larger than CROP_DEFAULT. > > > > I think you've missed the point of Jacopo's question. He wasn't asking > > if CROP needed to be inside CROP_BOUNDS, but what the reference was for > > the left and top coordinates. That is, for all the crop rectangles, what > > is the location of the (0,0) point ? Do they all refer to the same > > location, or are they relative to each other ? This is not defined. > > Ah, I misunderstood. > > For analog video it was actually undefined. It could be anything, although typically > the initial crop rectangle was at (0, 0). That meant that the larger BOUNDS area > could be at (-8, -8). > > For sensors nothing is defined at the moment, but IMHO the largest rectangle > (i.e. TGT_NATIVE_SIZE) should be at (0, 0). I think negative top-left coordinates > are just weird and can potentially cause signedness issues. > > In any case, all target rectangles are relative to the same point since you need > to know where the BOUNDS rectangle is within the larger NATIVE_SIZE rectangle > (ugly name BTW), and ditto for CROP/CROP_DEFAULT within the larger CROP_BOUNDS. That makes sense to me, having the same reference for all targets should make it simpler. Jacopo, do you think that's good ? > >>>> captured, including optical black and invalid pixels, while DEFAULT > >>>> defines the active area, excluding optical black and invalida pixels. To > >>>> put it another way, DEFAULT is what the kernel recommends applications > >>>> to use if they have no specific requirement and/or no specific knowledge > >>>> about the sensor. > >>>> > >>>> I fully agree this is very under-documented, which also means that my > >>>> understanding may be wrong :-) > >>> > >>> With some consensus on this interpretation I would be happy to update > >>> the documentation. I already considered that, but the selection API > >>> does not apply to image sensors only, and giving a description which > >>> is about the pixel array properties might be not totally opportune as > >>> it would rule out other devices like bridges or muxers. > >> > >> And m2m devices like codecs. > >> > >>>>>> .width = 3280, > >>>>>> .height = 2464 > >>>>>> }, > >>>>>> @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > >>>>>> .width = 1920, > >>>>>> .height = 1080, > >>>>>> .crop = { > >>>>>> - .left = 680, > >>>>>> - .top = 692, > >>>>>> + .left = 8 + 680, > >>>>>> + .top = 8 + 692, > >>>>>> .width = 1920, > >>>>>> .height = 1080 > >>>>>> }, > >>>>>> @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > >>>>>> .width = 1640, > >>>>>> .height = 1232, > >>>>>> .crop = { > >>>>>> - .left = 0, > >>>>>> - .top = 0, > >>>>>> + .left = 8, > >>>>>> + .top = 8, > >>>>>> .width = 3280, > >>>>>> .height = 2464 > >>>>>> }, > >>>>>> @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > >>>>>> .width = 640, > >>>>>> .height = 480, > >>>>>> .crop = { > >>>>>> - .left = 1000, > >>>>>> - .top = 752, > >>>>>> + .left = 8 + 1000, > >>>>>> + .top = 8 + 752, > >>>>>> .width = 1280, > >>>>>> .height = 960 > >>>>>> }, > >>>>>> @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > >>>>>> return 0; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: > >>>>>> + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: > >>>>> > >>>>> Still not getting what is the purpose of two targets if the "always > >>>>> have to go together" :) > >>>>> > >>>>>> sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; > >>>>>> sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; > >>>>>> sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH;
Hi Laurent, On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 02:20:31AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 03:53:41PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > On 16/07/2020 14:59, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 11:48:19AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > >> On 15/07/2020 09:19, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > >>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 02:49:38AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:31:46PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > >>>>>> The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the > > >>>>>> supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, > > >>>>>> so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS > > >>>>>> always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I actually introduced this with > > >>>>> e6d4ef7d58aa ("media: i2c: imx219: Implement get_selection") > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> > > >>>>>> --- > > >>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > >>>>>> index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 > > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > >>>>>> @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > >>>>>> .width = 3280, > > >>>>>> .height = 2464, > > >>>>>> .crop = { > > >>>>>> - .left = 0, > > >>>>>> - .top = 0, > > >>>>>> + .left = 8, > > >>>>>> + .top = 8, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Mmmm, why this change ? > > >>>>> This values are used to report V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP rectangle, which > > >>>>> according to the documentation is defined as > > >>>>> "Crop rectangle. Defines the cropped area." > > >>>>> (not a much extensive description :) > > >> > > >> Unless changed by calling S_SELECTION(TGT_CROP) the initial crop is equal > > >> to TGT_CROP_DEFAULT, and but TGT_CROP and TGT_CROP_DEFAULT shall be inside > > >> TGT_CROP_BOUNDS. CROP_BOUNDS may be larger than CROP_DEFAULT and describes > > >> the whole area from which you can crop. I.e. in the case of sensors you can > > >> set the crop rectangle to include optical blanks active pixels. > > >> > > >> In this driver the initial TGT_CROP rectangle as specified in supported_modes > > >> (aligned with the top-left pixel) was outside CROP_BOUNDS (centered) and also > > >> a mismatch with CROP_DEFAULT (also centered). > > >> > > >>>>> Clearly this is a faulty definition, and I know from experience how > > >>>>> hard is proving to define pixel array properties and in which extent > > >>>>> the documentation has to go: > > >>>>> https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/2020-June/009115.html > > >>>>> > > >>>>> My understanding is that target should report the current crop > > >>>>> rectangle, defined from the rectangle retrieved with the > > >>>>> V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT target, which, according documentation > > >>>>> reports the: > > >>>>> "Suggested cropping rectangle that covers the “whole picture”. > > >>>>> This includes only active pixels and excludes other non-active pixels such > > >>>>> as black pixels" > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The TGT_CROP_DEFAULT then reports the active pixel array portion, and > > >>>>> needs to be defined in respect to the TGT_NATIVE_SIZE, which reports > > >>>>> the dimensions of the whole pixel matrix, including non-active pixels, > > >>>>> optical blanks active and non-active pixels. > > >> > > >> The relationship between NATIVE_SIZE and CROP_BOUNDS is not properly defined, > > >> but I would expect that CROP_BOUNDS is inside the NATIVE_SIZE target rectangle. > > >> > > >> If NATIVE_SIZE is larger than BOUNDS, then I would expect that the additional > > >> margins are pixels that are invalid or otherwise useless. > > >> > > >> The hard rule though is that you can crop anywhere within the CROP_BOUNDS area. > > >> > > >> Historically CROP_BOUNDS originated with analog SDTV video capture where it was > > >> possible to capture more data than just the typical 720x576/480 PAL/NTSC active > > >> video area. Analog video was often overscanned, i.e. there was more video data > > >> outside the 'active' video area. That was how CRTs worked. So you could move the > > >> crop window around within the CROP_BOUNDS area, or just capture the full CROP_BOUNDS > > >> are. Although this was often poorly tested/implemented. The bttv driver is one of > > >> the few that could do this. > > >> > > >> This is actually simplified since you could do weird things with the horizontal > > >> sample rate as well, effectively changing the pixel aspect ratio, making things > > >> really complicated. It's analog video so while the video lines were discrete, > > >> horizontally you are just sampling a waveform, so you could sample at different > > >> rates if you wanted to. I doubt anyone ever used it since doing that would give > > >> you a huge headache :-) > > >> > > >> With digital video interfaces (HDMI, DVI, SDI, DP, etc.) that no longer applies and > > >> for those receivers the initial CROP/CROP_DEFAULT/CROP_BOUNDS rectangles are all > > >> the same, e.g. 1920x1080 for 1080p HDMI video. > > >> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The TGT_CROP rectangle is hence defined from the CROP_DEFAULT one, and > > >>>>> if the 'whole active area' is selected, its top-left corner is placed > > >>>>> in position (0, 0) (what's the point of defining it in respect to an > > >>>>> area which cannot be read anyway ?) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Unless TGT_CROP should be defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE > > >>>>> rectangle too, but that's not specified anywhere. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Anyway, those selection targets badly apply to image sensors, are > > >>>>> ill-defined as the definition of active pixels, optical blank (active > > >>>>> and non-active) pixels is not provided anywhere, and it's not specified > > >>>>> anywhere what is the reference area for each of those rectangles, so I > > >>>>> might very well got them wrongly. > > >>>> > > >>>> My understanding is that both TGT_CROP_DEFAULT and TGT_CROP_BOUNDS are > > >>>> relative to TGT_NATIVE_SIZE. BOUNDS defines all the pixels that can be > > >>> > > >>> And what is TGT_CROP reference in your understanding ? > > >> > > >> That's the rectangle you are actually cropping. Initially CROP == CROP_DEFAULT > > >> and CROP shall always be inside CROP_BOUNDS. And CROP_BOUNDS shall be equal > > >> or larger than CROP_DEFAULT. > > > > > > I think you've missed the point of Jacopo's question. He wasn't asking > > > if CROP needed to be inside CROP_BOUNDS, but what the reference was for > > > the left and top coordinates. That is, for all the crop rectangles, what > > > is the location of the (0,0) point ? Do they all refer to the same > > > location, or are they relative to each other ? This is not defined. > > > > Ah, I misunderstood. > > > > For analog video it was actually undefined. It could be anything, although typically > > the initial crop rectangle was at (0, 0). That meant that the larger BOUNDS area > > could be at (-8, -8). > > > > For sensors nothing is defined at the moment, but IMHO the largest rectangle > > (i.e. TGT_NATIVE_SIZE) should be at (0, 0). I think negative top-left coordinates > > are just weird and can potentially cause signedness issues. > > > > In any case, all target rectangles are relative to the same point since you need > > to know where the BOUNDS rectangle is within the larger NATIVE_SIZE rectangle > > (ugly name BTW), and ditto for CROP/CROP_DEFAULT within the larger CROP_BOUNDS. > > That makes sense to me, having the same reference for all targets should > make it simpler. Jacopo, do you think that's good ? > It's ok. We shall update the libcamera counterpart that reads the rectangles as soon as this patch gets in. Thanks j > > >>>> captured, including optical black and invalid pixels, while DEFAULT > > >>>> defines the active area, excluding optical black and invalida pixels. To > > >>>> put it another way, DEFAULT is what the kernel recommends applications > > >>>> to use if they have no specific requirement and/or no specific knowledge > > >>>> about the sensor. > > >>>> > > >>>> I fully agree this is very under-documented, which also means that my > > >>>> understanding may be wrong :-) > > >>> > > >>> With some consensus on this interpretation I would be happy to update > > >>> the documentation. I already considered that, but the selection API > > >>> does not apply to image sensors only, and giving a description which > > >>> is about the pixel array properties might be not totally opportune as > > >>> it would rule out other devices like bridges or muxers. > > >> > > >> And m2m devices like codecs. > > >> > > >>>>>> .width = 3280, > > >>>>>> .height = 2464 > > >>>>>> }, > > >>>>>> @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > >>>>>> .width = 1920, > > >>>>>> .height = 1080, > > >>>>>> .crop = { > > >>>>>> - .left = 680, > > >>>>>> - .top = 692, > > >>>>>> + .left = 8 + 680, > > >>>>>> + .top = 8 + 692, > > >>>>>> .width = 1920, > > >>>>>> .height = 1080 > > >>>>>> }, > > >>>>>> @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > >>>>>> .width = 1640, > > >>>>>> .height = 1232, > > >>>>>> .crop = { > > >>>>>> - .left = 0, > > >>>>>> - .top = 0, > > >>>>>> + .left = 8, > > >>>>>> + .top = 8, > > >>>>>> .width = 3280, > > >>>>>> .height = 2464 > > >>>>>> }, > > >>>>>> @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > >>>>>> .width = 640, > > >>>>>> .height = 480, > > >>>>>> .crop = { > > >>>>>> - .left = 1000, > > >>>>>> - .top = 752, > > >>>>>> + .left = 8 + 1000, > > >>>>>> + .top = 8 + 752, > > >>>>>> .width = 1280, > > >>>>>> .height = 960 > > >>>>>> }, > > >>>>>> @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > >>>>>> return 0; > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: > > >>>>>> + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Still not getting what is the purpose of two targets if the "always > > >>>>> have to go together" :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; > > >>>>>> sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; > > >>>>>> sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH; > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart
Hi Hans, Laurent,
sorry, long email, contains a few things on the general definition
of the selection target, a question for libcamera, and a few more
details at the end.
Adding Sakari, libcamera ml, Ricardo which helped with the
definition of pixel array properties in libcamera recently and
Dave and Naush as this sensor is the RPi camera module v2 and some
information on the sensor come from their BSP.
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the
> supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values,
> so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance.
>
> Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS
> always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance.
Let me try to summarize the outcome of the discussion
1) All selection rectangles are defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE
target, which returns the full pixel array size, which includes
readable and non-readable pixels. It's top-left corner is in
position (0,0)
3) CROP_BOUND returns the portion of the full pixel array which can be
read out, including optical black pixels, and is defined in respect
to the full pixel array size
2) CROP_DEFAULT returns the portion of the readable part of the pixel array
which contains valid image data (aka 'active' pixels). It is again
defined in respect to the full pixel array rectangle returned by
NATIVE_SIZE target.
With an ack on my understanding, I think it's worth expanding the
target documentation a bit. As I've said I've been hesitant in doing
so, as those targets do not only apply to image sensors, but I think a
section that goes like "If the sub-device represents and image sensor
then the V4L2_SEL_TGT_.. target represents ... "
Laurent: this will have some impact on libcamera as well
https://git.linuxtv.org/libcamera.git/tree/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp#n503
When we read the analogCrop rectangle, we decided it is defined in
respect to the active portion of the pixel array (CROP_DEFAULT) and
not from the full pixel array size (NATIVE_SIZE).
We then should:
1) Back-track on our decision to have analog crop defined in respect
to the active part and decide it should be defined in respect to the
full pixel array: this has implications on the existing IPAs that
assume what we have defined
2) Adjust the analogCrop rectangle by subtracting to its sizes the
values reported by TGT_CROP_DEFAULT.top and TGT_CROP_DEFAULT.left.
I would got for 2) what's your opinion ?
On this specific patch:
>
> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>
> ---
> drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c
> index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c
> @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = {
> .width = 3280,
> .height = 2464,
> .crop = {
> - .left = 0,
> - .top = 0,
> + .left = 8,
> + .top = 8,
we have
#define IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT 8U
#define IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP 8U
Which I would then re-name IMX219_ACTIVE_ARRAY_LEFT and
IMX219_ACTIVE_ARRAY_TOP and re-use it there
> .width = 3280,
> .height = 2464
> },
> @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = {
> .width = 1920,
> .height = 1080,
> .crop = {
> - .left = 680,
> - .top = 692,
> + .left = 8 + 680,
> + .top = 8 + 692,
> .width = 1920,
> .height = 1080
> },
> @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = {
> .width = 1640,
> .height = 1232,
> .crop = {
> - .left = 0,
> - .top = 0,
> + .left = 8,
> + .top = 8,
> .width = 3280,
> .height = 2464
> },
> @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = {
> .width = 640,
> .height = 480,
> .crop = {
> - .left = 1000,
> - .top = 752,
> + .left = 8 + 1000,
> + .top = 8 + 752,
> .width = 1280,
> .height = 960
> },
> @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> return 0;
>
> case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT:
> + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS:
I think this is fine and that's my reasoning:
The IMAX219 pixel array is documented as
/-------------- 3296 -------------------/
8 8
+---------------------------------------+ /
|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII| 8 |
|IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| |
|IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| |
|IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| |
|IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| |
|IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| |
|IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| |
.... 2480
|IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| |
|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII| |
|IoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooI| 16 |
|IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI| 16 |
|IoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooI| 8 |
+---------------------------------------+ /
Where:
I = invalid active area
p = valid pixels
o = Invalid OB area
O = Valid OB area
Effective area = 3296x2480
Active area = 3280x2464
The 'active area' is then sorrounded by 8 invalid rows, 8 invalid
cols at the beginning and the end, and followed by 8 more invalid
rows. Then, 16 invalid black rows follow, then 16 -valid- black
rows, then 8 invalid black rows again.
My understanding is that the whole effective area is sent on the bus,
as the CSI-2 timings report the sizes of the 'effective' area to be
the whole 3296x2480 matrix, and assigns a CSI-2 data-type to the
"Valid OB area" while sets the DataType for invalid areas to Null.
However the registers that select the analog crop work on the 'active
area' only, so there is not way to select "I want the Valid OB area"
only, as the whole 'effective area' is sent on the bus and the CSI-2
receivers filters on the DataType to discard the 'Invalid' lines (to
which a Null DataType is assigned) and capture image data ('active area')
and eventually 'Valid black' pixels (which have a data type assigned).
All of this to say, there's no point in reporting a TGT_BOUND larger
that the active area, as the user cannot select portions outside of it
through the S_SELECTION API, but can only instruct it's CSI-2 receiver
to filter-in the data it desires, which I think we're missing an API
for.
Hans: would you like to go ahead with this patch, or should I take
over and change the libcamera part that parses these properties in one
go ?
Thanks
j
> sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP;
> sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT;
> sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH;
> --
> 2.27.0
>
Hi Jacopo, On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 01:19:03PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > Hi Hans, Laurent, > > sorry, long email, contains a few things on the general definition > of the selection target, a question for libcamera, and a few more > details at the end. > > Adding Sakari, libcamera ml, Ricardo which helped with the > definition of pixel array properties in libcamera recently and > Dave and Naush as this sensor is the RPi camera module v2 and some > information on the sensor come from their BSP. > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the > > supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, > > so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > > > Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS > > always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > Let me try to summarize the outcome of the discussion > > 1) All selection rectangles are defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE > target, which returns the full pixel array size, which includes > readable and non-readable pixels. It's top-left corner is in > position (0,0) Yes, except that, to be pedantic, it's not that the top-left corner *is* in position (0,0) but that the top-left corner is defined as (0,0). NATIVE_SIZE is the root of the coordinates system, and by definition the top-left coordinates must be set to (0,0). > 3) CROP_BOUND returns the portion of the full pixel array which can be > read out, including optical black pixels, and is defined in respect > to the full pixel array size Yes. I'd say it's defined in respect to NATIVE_SIZE to avoid the indirection in the definition (NATIVE_SIZE and pixel array size are the same). This maps to the libcamera PixelArraySize property in libcamera. > 2) CROP_DEFAULT returns the portion of the readable part of the pixel array > which contains valid image data (aka 'active' pixels). It is again > defined in respect to the full pixel array rectangle returned by > NATIVE_SIZE target. Correct. This maps to the PixelArrayActiveAreas property in libcamera (assuming the property contains a single value). > With an ack on my understanding, I think it's worth expanding the > target documentation a bit. As I've said I've been hesitant in doing > so, as those targets do not only apply to image sensors, but I think a > section that goes like "If the sub-device represents and image sensor > then the V4L2_SEL_TGT_.. target represents ... " It's totally fine by me to add a section that defines the targets precisely for sensors. > Laurent: this will have some impact on libcamera as well > https://git.linuxtv.org/libcamera.git/tree/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp#n503 > When we read the analogCrop rectangle, we decided it is defined in > respect to the active portion of the pixel array (CROP_DEFAULT) and > not from the full pixel array size (NATIVE_SIZE). Note that the non-readable portion of NATIVE_SIZE has no impact in practice. A sensor driver could return NATIVE_SIZE == CROP_BOUND, as long as CROP_BOUND, CROP_DEFAULT and CROP are all expressed relatively to NATIVE_SIZE, it will make no difference for userspace. We could thus mandate that NATIVE_SIZE == CROP_BOUND to simplify things. > We then should: > 1) Back-track on our decision to have analog crop defined in respect > to the active part and decide it should be defined in respect to the > full pixel array: this has implications on the existing IPAs that > assume what we have defined > > 2) Adjust the analogCrop rectangle by subtracting to its sizes the > values reported by TGT_CROP_DEFAULT.top and TGT_CROP_DEFAULT.left. > > I would got for 2) what's your opinion ? Inside libcamera I would express all crop rectangles relatively to PixelArraySize, so mapping to V4L2 would require adding/subtracting the TGT_CROP_DEFAULT offset. That's why requiring NATIVE_SIZE == CROP_BOUND may simplify things. > On this specific patch: > > > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> > > --- > > drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 3280, > > .height = 2464, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 0, > > - .top = 0, > > + .left = 8, > > + .top = 8, > > we have > #define IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT 8U > #define IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP 8U > > Which I would then re-name IMX219_ACTIVE_ARRAY_LEFT and > IMX219_ACTIVE_ARRAY_TOP and re-use it there > > > .width = 3280, > > .height = 2464 > > }, > > @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 1920, > > .height = 1080, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 680, > > - .top = 692, > > + .left = 8 + 680, > > + .top = 8 + 692, > > .width = 1920, > > .height = 1080 > > }, > > @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 1640, > > .height = 1232, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 0, > > - .top = 0, > > + .left = 8, > > + .top = 8, > > .width = 3280, > > .height = 2464 > > }, > > @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 640, > > .height = 480, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 1000, > > - .top = 752, > > + .left = 8 + 1000, > > + .top = 8 + 752, > > .width = 1280, > > .height = 960 > > }, > > @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > return 0; > > > > case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: > > + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: > > I think this is fine and that's my reasoning: > > The IMAX219 pixel array is documented as > > /-------------- 3296 -------------------/ > 8 8 > +---------------------------------------+ / > |IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII| 8 | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > > .... 2480 > > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII| | > |IoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooI| 16 | > |IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI| 16 | > |IoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooI| 8 | > +---------------------------------------+ / > > Where: > I = invalid active area > p = valid pixels > o = Invalid OB area > O = Valid OB area > Effective area = 3296x2480 > Active area = 3280x2464 This doesn't match your diagram above, 8+2464+16+16+8 != 2480. > The 'active area' is then sorrounded by 8 invalid rows, 8 invalid > cols at the beginning and the end, and followed by 8 more invalid > rows. Then, 16 invalid black rows follow, then 16 -valid- black > rows, then 8 invalid black rows again. > > My understanding is that the whole effective area is sent on the bus, > as the CSI-2 timings report the sizes of the 'effective' area to be > the whole 3296x2480 matrix, and assigns a CSI-2 data-type to the > "Valid OB area" while sets the DataType for invalid areas to Null. > > However the registers that select the analog crop work on the 'active > area' only, so there is not way to select "I want the Valid OB area" > only, as the whole 'effective area' is sent on the bus and the CSI-2 > receivers filters on the DataType to discard the 'Invalid' lines (to > which a Null DataType is assigned) and capture image data ('active area') > and eventually 'Valid black' pixels (which have a data type assigned). I'm not aware of CSI-2 receivers that can capture NULL data types. At most you'll be able to capture OB and active pixels, nothing else. > All of this to say, there's no point in reporting a TGT_BOUND larger > that the active area, as the user cannot select portions outside of it > through the S_SELECTION API, but can only instruct it's CSI-2 receiver > to filter-in the data it desires, which I think we're missing an API > for. This however contradicts your proposal above, where you said that CROP_BOUND should include the OB lines :-) > Hans: would you like to go ahead with this patch, or should I take > over and change the libcamera part that parses these properties in one > go ? > > > sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; > > sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; > > sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH;
Hi Laurent, On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 06:13:17PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 01:19:03PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > Hi Hans, Laurent, > > > > sorry, long email, contains a few things on the general definition > > of the selection target, a question for libcamera, and a few more > > details at the end. > > > > Adding Sakari, libcamera ml, Ricardo which helped with the > > definition of pixel array properties in libcamera recently and > > Dave and Naush as this sensor is the RPi camera module v2 and some > > information on the sensor come from their BSP. > > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the > > > supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, > > > so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > > > > > Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS > > > always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > > > Let me try to summarize the outcome of the discussion > > > > 1) All selection rectangles are defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE > > target, which returns the full pixel array size, which includes > > readable and non-readable pixels. It's top-left corner is in > > position (0,0) > > Yes, except that, to be pedantic, it's not that the top-left corner *is* > in position (0,0) but that the top-left corner is defined as (0,0). > NATIVE_SIZE is the root of the coordinates system, and by definition the > top-left coordinates must be set to (0,0). > You are pedantically right > > 3) CROP_BOUND returns the portion of the full pixel array which can be > > read out, including optical black pixels, and is defined in respect > > to the full pixel array size > > Yes. I'd say it's defined in respect to NATIVE_SIZE to avoid the > indirection in the definition (NATIVE_SIZE and pixel array size are the > same). > > This maps to the libcamera PixelArraySize property in libcamera. > Yes it does! > > 2) CROP_DEFAULT returns the portion of the readable part of the pixel array > > which contains valid image data (aka 'active' pixels). It is again > > defined in respect to the full pixel array rectangle returned by > > NATIVE_SIZE target. > > Correct. > > This maps to the PixelArrayActiveAreas property in libcamera (assuming > the property contains a single value). > Yes, right now a single Rectangle can be expressed with the existing V4L2 API > > With an ack on my understanding, I think it's worth expanding the > > target documentation a bit. As I've said I've been hesitant in doing > > so, as those targets do not only apply to image sensors, but I think a > > section that goes like "If the sub-device represents and image sensor > > then the V4L2_SEL_TGT_.. target represents ... " > > It's totally fine by me to add a section that defines the targets > precisely for sensors. > > > Laurent: this will have some impact on libcamera as well > > https://git.linuxtv.org/libcamera.git/tree/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp#n503 > > When we read the analogCrop rectangle, we decided it is defined in > > respect to the active portion of the pixel array (CROP_DEFAULT) and > > not from the full pixel array size (NATIVE_SIZE). > > Note that the non-readable portion of NATIVE_SIZE has no impact in > practice. A sensor driver could return NATIVE_SIZE == CROP_BOUND, as > long as CROP_BOUND, CROP_DEFAULT and CROP are all expressed relatively > to NATIVE_SIZE, it will make no difference for userspace. > > We could thus mandate that NATIVE_SIZE == CROP_BOUND to simplify things. > > > We then should: > > 1) Back-track on our decision to have analog crop defined in respect > > to the active part and decide it should be defined in respect to the > > full pixel array: this has implications on the existing IPAs that > > assume what we have defined > > > > 2) Adjust the analogCrop rectangle by subtracting to its sizes the > > values reported by TGT_CROP_DEFAULT.top and TGT_CROP_DEFAULT.left. > > > > I would got for 2) what's your opinion ? > > Inside libcamera I would express all crop rectangles relatively to > PixelArraySize, so mapping to V4L2 would require adding/subtracting the > TGT_CROP_DEFAULT offset. That's why requiring NATIVE_SIZE == CROP_BOUND > may simplify things. > If we want to define libcamera properties relatively to PixelArraySize (the readable part of the pixel array), then we'll have to subtract the TGT_CROP_BOUND offsets, not the _DEFAULT one, otherwise we would express it relatively to the active part of the pixel array (which would be ok, but as those properties are for IPA, they might want to be able to read OB pixels out ?) > > On this specific patch: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> > > > --- > > > drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > > index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > > @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > > .width = 3280, > > > .height = 2464, > > > .crop = { > > > - .left = 0, > > > - .top = 0, > > > + .left = 8, > > > + .top = 8, > > > > we have > > #define IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT 8U > > #define IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP 8U > > > > Which I would then re-name IMX219_ACTIVE_ARRAY_LEFT and > > IMX219_ACTIVE_ARRAY_TOP and re-use it there > > > > > .width = 3280, > > > .height = 2464 > > > }, > > > @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > > .width = 1920, > > > .height = 1080, > > > .crop = { > > > - .left = 680, > > > - .top = 692, > > > + .left = 8 + 680, > > > + .top = 8 + 692, > > > .width = 1920, > > > .height = 1080 > > > }, > > > @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > > .width = 1640, > > > .height = 1232, > > > .crop = { > > > - .left = 0, > > > - .top = 0, > > > + .left = 8, > > > + .top = 8, > > > .width = 3280, > > > .height = 2464 > > > }, > > > @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > > .width = 640, > > > .height = 480, > > > .crop = { > > > - .left = 1000, > > > - .top = 752, > > > + .left = 8 + 1000, > > > + .top = 8 + 752, > > > .width = 1280, > > > .height = 960 > > > }, > > > @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > > return 0; > > > > > > case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: > > > + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: > > > > I think this is fine and that's my reasoning: > > > > The IMAX219 pixel array is documented as > > > > /-------------- 3296 -------------------/ > > 8 8 > > +---------------------------------------+ / > > |IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII| 8 | > > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > > > > .... 2480 > > > > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > > |IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII| | > > |IoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooI| 16 | > > |IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI| 16 | > > |IoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooI| 8 | > > +---------------------------------------+ / > > > > Where: > > I = invalid active area > > p = valid pixels > > o = Invalid OB area > > O = Valid OB area > > Effective area = 3296x2480 > > Active area = 3280x2464 > > This doesn't match your diagram above, 8+2464+16+16+8 != 2480. > Correct. The 'effective' 2480 size is defined without taking OB pixels in consideration > > The 'active area' is then sorrounded by 8 invalid rows, 8 invalid > > cols at the beginning and the end, and followed by 8 more invalid > > rows. Then, 16 invalid black rows follow, then 16 -valid- black > > rows, then 8 invalid black rows again. > > > > My understanding is that the whole effective area is sent on the bus, > > as the CSI-2 timings report the sizes of the 'effective' area to be > > the whole 3296x2480 matrix, and assigns a CSI-2 data-type to the > > "Valid OB area" while sets the DataType for invalid areas to Null. > > > > However the registers that select the analog crop work on the 'active > > area' only, so there is not way to select "I want the Valid OB area" > > only, as the whole 'effective area' is sent on the bus and the CSI-2 > > receivers filters on the DataType to discard the 'Invalid' lines (to > > which a Null DataType is assigned) and capture image data ('active area') > > and eventually 'Valid black' pixels (which have a data type assigned). > > I'm not aware of CSI-2 receivers that can capture NULL data types. At > most you'll be able to capture OB and active pixels, nothing else. > That's what I meant, Invalid lines are put on the bus but discarded. At this point, the manual seems to be contradicting, as the CSI-2 timings report a data type for OB pixels and show the whole 'effective' area to be put on the bus, hence I assume it contains OB pixels (table 13 adn figure 20). But as you noted, what is defined as 'effective' area by the pixel array drawings does not contain OB lines. Furthermore, Figure 46 confuses me even more. >> All of this to say, there's no point in reporting a TGT_BOUND larger > > that the active area, as the user cannot select portions outside of it > > through the S_SELECTION API, but can only instruct it's CSI-2 receiver > > to filter-in the data it desires, which I think we're missing an API > > for. > > This however contradicts your proposal above, where you said that > CROP_BOUND should include the OB lines :-) > It should -if- they are readable through the selection API, ie, you can select an area with TGT_CROP to read-out which includes OB lines. My understanding is that this sensor does not allow you to do so, as the registers that allows to select the analog crop portion range on the active pixel area portion. Maybe RPi people which worked more with the sensor know more about this ? Hence CROP_BOUNDS = CROP_DEFAULT, as this patch does, I think it's fine. For libcamera this means PixelArraySize == PixelArrayActiveAreas And analogCrop should be adjusted to take the CROP_BOUND offsets into account. A pretty messy topic indeed :/ > > Hans: would you like to go ahead with this patch, or should I take > > over and change the libcamera part that parses these properties in one > > go ? > > > > > sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; > > > sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; > > > sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH; > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart
On 01/08/2020 13:19, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > Hans: would you like to go ahead with this patch, or should I take > over and change the libcamera part that parses these properties in one > go ? Feel free to take it over! Regards, Hans > > Thanks > j > >> sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; >> sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; >> sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH; >> -- >> 2.27.0 >>
On 01/08/2020 17:13, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 01:19:03PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote: >> Hi Hans, Laurent, >> >> sorry, long email, contains a few things on the general definition >> of the selection target, a question for libcamera, and a few more >> details at the end. >> >> Adding Sakari, libcamera ml, Ricardo which helped with the >> definition of pixel array properties in libcamera recently and >> Dave and Naush as this sensor is the RPi camera module v2 and some >> information on the sensor come from their BSP. >> >> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >>> The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the >>> supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, >>> so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. >>> >>> Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS >>> always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. >> >> Let me try to summarize the outcome of the discussion >> >> 1) All selection rectangles are defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE >> target, which returns the full pixel array size, which includes >> readable and non-readable pixels. It's top-left corner is in >> position (0,0) > > Yes, except that, to be pedantic, it's not that the top-left corner *is* > in position (0,0) but that the top-left corner is defined as (0,0). > NATIVE_SIZE is the root of the coordinates system, and by definition the > top-left coordinates must be set to (0,0). > >> 3) CROP_BOUND returns the portion of the full pixel array which can be >> read out, including optical black pixels, and is defined in respect >> to the full pixel array size > > Yes. I'd say it's defined in respect to NATIVE_SIZE to avoid the > indirection in the definition (NATIVE_SIZE and pixel array size are the > same). > > This maps to the libcamera PixelArraySize property in libcamera. > >> 2) CROP_DEFAULT returns the portion of the readable part of the pixel array >> which contains valid image data (aka 'active' pixels). It is again >> defined in respect to the full pixel array rectangle returned by >> NATIVE_SIZE target. > > Correct. > > This maps to the PixelArrayActiveAreas property in libcamera (assuming > the property contains a single value). > >> With an ack on my understanding, I think it's worth expanding the >> target documentation a bit. As I've said I've been hesitant in doing >> so, as those targets do not only apply to image sensors, but I think a >> section that goes like "If the sub-device represents and image sensor >> then the V4L2_SEL_TGT_.. target represents ... " > > It's totally fine by me to add a section that defines the targets > precisely for sensors. > >> Laurent: this will have some impact on libcamera as well >> https://git.linuxtv.org/libcamera.git/tree/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp#n503 >> When we read the analogCrop rectangle, we decided it is defined in >> respect to the active portion of the pixel array (CROP_DEFAULT) and >> not from the full pixel array size (NATIVE_SIZE). > > Note that the non-readable portion of NATIVE_SIZE has no impact in > practice. A sensor driver could return NATIVE_SIZE == CROP_BOUND, as > long as CROP_BOUND, CROP_DEFAULT and CROP are all expressed relatively > to NATIVE_SIZE, it will make no difference for userspace. > > We could thus mandate that NATIVE_SIZE == CROP_BOUND to simplify things. Grepping for V4L2_SEL_TGT_NATIVE_SIZE shows it being used in three drivers: imx219, smiapp and coda. The use in coda is bogus (seems to be a left-over of old code) and it can be removed in that driver. It's not quite clear how it is used in smiapp: it appears to be mapped to CROP_BOUNDS as well, but it is only exposed if the drivers knows the native size. Going back to Sailus' original patch series from 2014 adding the NATIVE_SIZE target, it appears that it was added as a CROP_BOUNDS replacement. From the cover letter: "The two latter patches create a V4L2_SEL_TGT_NATIVE_SIZE target which is used in the smiapp driver. The CROP_BOUNDS target is still supported as compatibility means." and from patch 5/5 ("smiapp: Support V4L2_SEL_TGT_NATIVE_SIZE"): "Add support for selection target V4L2_SEL_TGT_NATIVE_SIZE. It is equivalent of what V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS used to be. Support for V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS is still supported by the driver as a compatibility interface." So in the context of sensors NATIVE_SIZE == CROP_BOUNDS. What I can't remember is why this new target was added if it acts the same as CROP_BOUNDS. There is a valid use-case for NATIVE_SIZE for hardware that can create a 'canvas' of a programmable size in which incoming video streams are composed and the whole canvas is streamed out. But we don't have such devices at the moment. Regards, Hans
Hi Jacopo, Hans, and Laurent. On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 12:15, Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org> wrote: > > Hi Hans, Laurent, > > sorry, long email, contains a few things on the general definition > of the selection target, a question for libcamera, and a few more > details at the end. > > Adding Sakari, libcamera ml, Ricardo which helped with the > definition of pixel array properties in libcamera recently and > Dave and Naush as this sensor is the RPi camera module v2 and some > information on the sensor come from their BSP. Thanks for cc'ing me in but I'll say that this seems to be a framework question rather than specifically an IMX219 thing. I'll therefore leave it to those with far more knowledge on how things are expected to work within V4L2 to decide how this is meant to work, and how it should all be defined (and documented!). I have no particular views on it. Dave > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:50:04PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the > > supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, > > so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > > > Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS > > always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. > > Let me try to summarize the outcome of the discussion > > 1) All selection rectangles are defined in respect to the NATIVE_SIZE > target, which returns the full pixel array size, which includes > readable and non-readable pixels. It's top-left corner is in > position (0,0) > > 3) CROP_BOUND returns the portion of the full pixel array which can be > read out, including optical black pixels, and is defined in respect > to the full pixel array size > > 2) CROP_DEFAULT returns the portion of the readable part of the pixel array > which contains valid image data (aka 'active' pixels). It is again > defined in respect to the full pixel array rectangle returned by > NATIVE_SIZE target. > > With an ack on my understanding, I think it's worth expanding the > target documentation a bit. As I've said I've been hesitant in doing > so, as those targets do not only apply to image sensors, but I think a > section that goes like "If the sub-device represents and image sensor > then the V4L2_SEL_TGT_.. target represents ... " > > Laurent: this will have some impact on libcamera as well > https://git.linuxtv.org/libcamera.git/tree/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp#n503 > When we read the analogCrop rectangle, we decided it is defined in > respect to the active portion of the pixel array (CROP_DEFAULT) and > not from the full pixel array size (NATIVE_SIZE). > > We then should: > 1) Back-track on our decision to have analog crop defined in respect > to the active part and decide it should be defined in respect to the > full pixel array: this has implications on the existing IPAs that > assume what we have defined > > 2) Adjust the analogCrop rectangle by subtracting to its sizes the > values reported by TGT_CROP_DEFAULT.top and TGT_CROP_DEFAULT.left. > > I would got for 2) what's your opinion ? > > On this specific patch: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> > > --- > > drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c > > @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 3280, > > .height = 2464, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 0, > > - .top = 0, > > + .left = 8, > > + .top = 8, > > we have > #define IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT 8U > #define IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP 8U > > Which I would then re-name IMX219_ACTIVE_ARRAY_LEFT and > IMX219_ACTIVE_ARRAY_TOP and re-use it there > > > > .width = 3280, > > .height = 2464 > > }, > > @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 1920, > > .height = 1080, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 680, > > - .top = 692, > > + .left = 8 + 680, > > + .top = 8 + 692, > > .width = 1920, > > .height = 1080 > > }, > > @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 1640, > > .height = 1232, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 0, > > - .top = 0, > > + .left = 8, > > + .top = 8, > > .width = 3280, > > .height = 2464 > > }, > > @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { > > .width = 640, > > .height = 480, > > .crop = { > > - .left = 1000, > > - .top = 752, > > + .left = 8 + 1000, > > + .top = 8 + 752, > > .width = 1280, > > .height = 960 > > }, > > @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > return 0; > > > > case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: > > + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: > > I think this is fine and that's my reasoning: > > The IMAX219 pixel array is documented as > > /-------------- 3296 -------------------/ > 8 8 > +---------------------------------------+ / > |IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII| 8 | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > > .... 2480 > > |IpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppI| | > |IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII| | > |IoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooI| 16 | > |IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI| 16 | > |IoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooI| 8 | > +---------------------------------------+ / > > Where: > I = invalid active area > p = valid pixels > o = Invalid OB area > O = Valid OB area > Effective area = 3296x2480 > Active area = 3280x2464 > > The 'active area' is then sorrounded by 8 invalid rows, 8 invalid > cols at the beginning and the end, and followed by 8 more invalid > rows. Then, 16 invalid black rows follow, then 16 -valid- black > rows, then 8 invalid black rows again. > > My understanding is that the whole effective area is sent on the bus, > as the CSI-2 timings report the sizes of the 'effective' area to be > the whole 3296x2480 matrix, and assigns a CSI-2 data-type to the > "Valid OB area" while sets the DataType for invalid areas to Null. > > However the registers that select the analog crop work on the 'active > area' only, so there is not way to select "I want the Valid OB area" > only, as the whole 'effective area' is sent on the bus and the CSI-2 > receivers filters on the DataType to discard the 'Invalid' lines (to > which a Null DataType is assigned) and capture image data ('active area') > and eventually 'Valid black' pixels (which have a data type assigned). > > All of this to say, there's no point in reporting a TGT_BOUND larger > that the active area, as the user cannot select portions outside of it > through the S_SELECTION API, but can only instruct it's CSI-2 receiver > to filter-in the data it desires, which I think we're missing an API > for. > > Hans: would you like to go ahead with this patch, or should I take > over and change the libcamera part that parses these properties in one > go ? > > Thanks > j > > > sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; > > sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; > > sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH; > > -- > > 2.27.0 > > > _______________________________________________ > libcamera-devel mailing list > libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org > https://lists.libcamera.org/listinfo/libcamera-devel
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c index 0a546b8e466c..935e2a258ce5 100644 --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c @@ -473,8 +473,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { .width = 3280, .height = 2464, .crop = { - .left = 0, - .top = 0, + .left = 8, + .top = 8, .width = 3280, .height = 2464 }, @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { .width = 1920, .height = 1080, .crop = { - .left = 680, - .top = 692, + .left = 8 + 680, + .top = 8 + 692, .width = 1920, .height = 1080 }, @@ -505,8 +505,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { .width = 1640, .height = 1232, .crop = { - .left = 0, - .top = 0, + .left = 8, + .top = 8, .width = 3280, .height = 2464 }, @@ -521,8 +521,8 @@ static const struct imx219_mode supported_modes[] = { .width = 640, .height = 480, .crop = { - .left = 1000, - .top = 752, + .left = 8 + 1000, + .top = 8 + 752, .width = 1280, .height = 960 }, @@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ static int imx219_get_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, return 0; case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_DEFAULT: + case V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS: sel->r.top = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_TOP; sel->r.left = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_LEFT; sel->r.width = IMX219_PIXEL_ARRAY_WIDTH;
The top/left crop coordinates were 0, 0 instead of 8, 8 in the supported_modes array. This was a mismatch with the default values, so this is corrected. Found with v4l2-compliance. Also add V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP_BOUNDS support: CROP_DEFAULT and CROP_BOUNDS always go together. Found with v4l2-compliance. Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> --- drivers/media/i2c/imx219.c | 17 +++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)