[PATCH v1 0/4] Raspberry Pi: Add support for Pi 5 (PiSP)

[Kieran Bingham]

Hi Naush,

Quoting Kieran Bingham (2025-01-13 12:12:48)
> Hi Naush,
> 
> Quoting Naushir Patuck (2025-01-13 09:24:42)
> > Hi,
> > 
> > A long time coming... this series add support for Raspberry Pi 5 (PiSP) to
> > upstream libcamera. The IPA and pipeline handler code have been taken mostly
> > unchanged from the Raspberry Pi downstream libcamera tree:
> > https://github.com/raspberrypi/libcamera. Support for IMX500 and CNNs are not
> > available in this series since we have yet to attempt to upstream the kernel
> > changes.
> > 
> > IMPORTANT NOTE
> > --------------
> > The Pi 5 pipeline handler in this commit is NOT COMPATIBLE with the Raspberry Pi
> > kernel drivers just yet! Instead, you must use the mainline kernel upstream
> > drivers with this pipeline handler. When futher upstreaming development for
> > embedded data is completed, RPi will backport the upstream kernel drives to our
> > tree and this pipeline handler will then begin to work with both upstream and
> > downstream kernel trees.
> 
> Thanks for posting this!
> 
> The first issue we face is the dependency in libpisp in the CI loops it
> seems:
> 
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/camera/libcamera/-/pipelines/1344547
> 
> has many failed jobs, which I believe are all going to be more or less
> instances of:
> 
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/camera/libcamera/-/jobs/69247972
> 
>  src/libcamera/pipeline/rpi/pisp/meson.build:8:14: ERROR: Dependency 'libpisp' is required but not found.
> 

All of this is now resolved, and these patches are successfully run
through CI:

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/camera/libcamera/-/pipelines/1386009

A few linter issues but I wouldn't dwell on those:

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/camera/libcamera/-/jobs/73051446


I'm keen to see these patches merged!


Naush - it's been some time since you posted these. Are there any
updates or changes you require to these before merge?

Due to the size - if you have any updates, please feel free to send me a
PR/branch rather than hitting the list/patchwork with the large content
of the tuning files again in this instance.

--
Kieran