[libcamera-devel] [PATCH 2/2] ipa: libipa: Add OV5695 Camera Sensor Helper

[Kieran Bingham]

Quoting Kieran Bingham (2023-03-01 14:55:25)
> Quoting Jacopo Mondi (2023-02-28 15:33:22)
> > Hi Kieran
> > 
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 08:42:54PM +0000, Kieran Bingham via libcamera-devel wrote:
> > > Provide a CameraSensorHelper for the OV5695, along with the
> > > corresponding camera sensor properties.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham at ideasonboard.com>
> > > ---
> > >  src/ipa/libipa/camera_sensor_helper.cpp    | 11 +++++++++++
> > >  src/libcamera/camera_sensor_properties.cpp |  8 ++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/src/ipa/libipa/camera_sensor_helper.cpp b/src/ipa/libipa/camera_sensor_helper.cpp
> > > index d1051cc25656..a38fefc75372 100644
> > > --- a/src/ipa/libipa/camera_sensor_helper.cpp
> > > +++ b/src/ipa/libipa/camera_sensor_helper.cpp
> > > @@ -527,6 +527,17 @@ public:
> > >  };
> > >  REGISTER_CAMERA_SENSOR_HELPER("ov5693", CameraSensorHelperOv5693)
> > >
> > > +class CameraSensorHelperOv5695 : public CameraSensorHelper
> > > +{
> > > +public:
> > > +     CameraSensorHelperOv5695()
> > > +     {
> > > +             gainType_ = AnalogueGainLinear;
> > > +             gainConstants_.linear = { 1, 0, 0, 128 };
> > > +     }
> > > +};
> > > +REGISTER_CAMERA_SENSOR_HELPER("ov5695", CameraSensorHelperOv5695)
> > > +
> > 
> > I don't have a datasheet, but again, seeing this in action it seems
> > reasonable

Me neither. But I wonder if that will be most sensors we have to add
here. I could also add:

+               /* This has been validated with some empirical testing only. */

But that might be applicable to 'most' of the CameraSensorHelpers?
Do we need to have a way to mark which ones would benefit from extra
validation? (Maybe a comment is enough ?)



> > 
> > >  class CameraSensorHelperOv8858 : public CameraSensorHelper
> > >  {
> > >  public:
> > > diff --git a/src/libcamera/camera_sensor_properties.cpp b/src/libcamera/camera_sensor_properties.cpp
> > > index 7652c5f3e24c..a92c13b87b7f 100644
> > > --- a/src/libcamera/camera_sensor_properties.cpp
> > > +++ b/src/libcamera/camera_sensor_properties.cpp
> > > @@ -204,6 +204,14 @@ const CameraSensorProperties *CameraSensorProperties::get(const std::string &sen
> > >                                */
> > >                       },
> > >               } },
> > > +             { "ov5695", {
> > > +                     .unitCellSize = { 1400, 1400 },
> > 
> > Can't validate this without a datasheet..
> 
> It's listed in the publicly available product brief:
> 
>  pixel size: 1.4 μm x 1.4 μm
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > > +                     .testPatternModes = {
> > > +                             { controls::draft::TestPatternModeOff, 0 },
> > > +                             { controls::draft::TestPatternModeColorBars, 2 },
> > > +                             { controls::draft::TestPatternModeColorBarsFadeToGray, 4},
> > > +                     },
> > 
> > The driver reports
> > 
> > static const char * const ov5695_test_pattern_menu[] = {
> >         "Disabled",
> >         "Vertical Color Bar Type 1",
> >         "Vertical Color Bar Type 2",
> >         "Vertical Color Bar Type 3",
> >         "Vertical Color Bar Type 4"
> > };
> > 
> > Have you inspected the produced test pattern ?
> > If so
> 
> Yes, that was my best identifications from enabling the test patterns.
> Annoyingly - the AGC/AWB quite quickly destroys the TPG patterns so you
> have to be quick to see what's output. But that's a separate (and I
> think known) issue...
> 
> > Reviewed-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi at ideasonboard.com>
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> >   j
> > 
> > > +             } },
> > >               { "ov8858", {
> > >                       .unitCellSize = { 1120, 1120 },
> > >                       .testPatternModes = {
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >