[PATCH v8 05/14] media: rkisp1: add Rockchip ISP1 subdev driver
Laurent Pinchart
laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com
Wed Jul 22 12:30:45 EDT 2020
Hi Dafna and Tomasz,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 03:24:59PM +0000, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 01:04:31PM +0200, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote:
> > On 16.08.19 02:13, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 03:42:47PM -0300, Helen Koike wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > +static void rkisp1_isp_queue_event_sof(struct rkisp1_isp_subdev *isp)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct v4l2_event event = {
> > > > + .type = V4L2_EVENT_FRAME_SYNC,
> > > > + .u.frame_sync.frame_sequence =
> > > > + atomic_inc_return(&isp->frm_sync_seq) - 1,
> > >
> > > I would move the increment to the caller, hiding it in this function is
> > > error-prone (and if you look at the caller I'm pointing out one possible
> > > error :-)).
> > >
> > > In general usage of frm_sync_seq through the driver seems to be very
> > > race-prone. It's read in various IRQ handling functions, all coming from
> > > the same IRQ, so that part is fine (and wouldn't require an atomic
> > > variable), but when read from the buffer queue handlers I really get a
> > > red light flashing in my head. I'll try to investigate more when
> > > reviewing the next patches.
> >
> > I see that the only place were 'frame_sequence' is read outside of the irq
> > handlers is in the capture in 'rkisp1_vb2_buf_queue':
> >
> > /*
> > * If there's no next buffer assigned, queue this buffer directly
> > * as the next buffer, and update the memory interface.
> > */
> > if (cap->is_streaming && !cap->buf.next &&
> > atomic_read(&cap->rkisp1->isp.frame_sequence) == -1) {
> > cap->buf.next = ispbuf;
> > rkisp1_set_next_buf(cap);
> > } else {
> > list_add_tail(&ispbuf->queue, &cap->buf.queue);
> > }
> >
> > This "if" condition seems very specific, a case where we already stream but v-start was not yet received.
> > I think it is possible to remove the test 'atomic_read(&cap->rkisp1->isp.frame_sequence) == -1'
> > from the above condition so that the next buffer is updated in case it is null not just before the first
> > v-start signal.
>
> We don't have this special case in the Chrome OS code.
>
> I suppose it would make it possible to resume the capture 1 frame
> earlier after a queue underrun, as otherwise the new buffer would be
> only programmed after the next frame start interrupt and used for the
> next-next frame. However, it's racy, because programming of the buffer
> addresses is not atomic and could end up with the hardware using few
> plane addresses from the new buffer and few from the dummy buffer.
>
> Given that and also the fact that a queue underrun is a very special
> case, where the system was already having problems catching up, I'd just
> remove this special case.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > +void rkisp1_isp_isr(unsigned int isp_mis, struct rkisp1_device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + void __iomem *base = dev->base_addr;
> > > > + unsigned int isp_mis_tmp = 0;
> > >
> > > _tmp are never good names :-S
> > >
> > > > + unsigned int isp_err = 0;
> > >
> > > Neither of these variable need to be initialised to 0.
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + /* start edge of v_sync */
> > > > + if (isp_mis & CIF_ISP_V_START) {
> > > > + rkisp1_isp_queue_event_sof(&dev->isp_sdev);
> > >
> > > This will increment the frame sequence number. What if the interrupt is
> > > slightly delayed and the next frame starts before we get a change to
> > > copy the sequence number to the buffers (before they will complete
> > > below) ?
> >
> > Do you mean that we get two sequental v-start signals and then the next
> > frame-end signal in MI_MIS belongs to the first v-start signal of the two?
> > How can this be solved? I wonder if any v-start signal has a later signal
> > that correspond to the same frame so that we can follow it?
> >
> > Maybe we should have one counter that is incremented on v-start signal,
> > and another counter that is incremented uppon some other signal?
>
> We're talking about a hard IRQ. I can't imagine the interrupt handler
> being delayed for a time close to a full frame interval (~16ms for 60
> fps) to trigger such scenario.
I've been burnt too many times by making such statements and then seeing
a wifi driver disablign interrupts for 40ms... :-S We can only perform
as well as the system and the hardware allow us to, I understand we
can't solve all issues related to long interrupt delays as that would
require more hardware support. I'm not sure what an appropriate best
effort level is though.
> > > > +
> > > > + writel(CIF_ISP_V_START, base + CIF_ISP_ICR);
> > >
> > > Do you need to clear all interrupt bits individually, can't you write
> > > isp_mis to CIF_ISP_ICR at the beginning of the function to clear them
> > > all in one go ?
> > >
> > > > + isp_mis_tmp = readl(base + CIF_ISP_MIS);
> > > > + if (isp_mis_tmp & CIF_ISP_V_START)
> > > > + v4l2_err(&dev->v4l2_dev, "isp icr v_statr err: 0x%x\n",
> > > > + isp_mis_tmp);
> > >
> > > This require some explanation. It looks like a naive way to protect
> > > against something, but I think it could trigger under normal
> > > circumstances if IRQ handling is delayed, and wouldn't do much anyway.
> > > Same for the similar constructs below.
> > >
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if ((isp_mis & CIF_ISP_PIC_SIZE_ERROR)) {
> > > > + /* Clear pic_size_error */
> > > > + writel(CIF_ISP_PIC_SIZE_ERROR, base + CIF_ISP_ICR);
> > > > + isp_err = readl(base + CIF_ISP_ERR);
> > > > + v4l2_err(&dev->v4l2_dev,
> > > > + "CIF_ISP_PIC_SIZE_ERROR (0x%08x)", isp_err);
> > >
> > > What does this mean ?
> > >
> > > > + writel(isp_err, base + CIF_ISP_ERR_CLR);
> > > > + } else if ((isp_mis & CIF_ISP_DATA_LOSS)) {
> > >
> > > Are CIF_ISP_PIC_SIZE_ERROR and CIF_ISP_DATA_LOSS mutually exclusive ?
> > >
> > > > + /* Clear data_loss */
> > > > + writel(CIF_ISP_DATA_LOSS, base + CIF_ISP_ICR);
> > > > + v4l2_err(&dev->v4l2_dev, "CIF_ISP_DATA_LOSS\n");
> > > > + writel(CIF_ISP_DATA_LOSS, base + CIF_ISP_ICR);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + /* sampled input frame is complete */
> > > > + if (isp_mis & CIF_ISP_FRAME_IN) {
> > > > + writel(CIF_ISP_FRAME_IN, base + CIF_ISP_ICR);
> > > > + isp_mis_tmp = readl(base + CIF_ISP_MIS);
> > > > + if (isp_mis_tmp & CIF_ISP_FRAME_IN)
> > > > + v4l2_err(&dev->v4l2_dev, "isp icr frame_in err: 0x%x\n",
> > > > + isp_mis_tmp);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + /* frame was completely put out */
> > >
> > > "put out" ? :-) What's the difference between ISP_FRAME_IN and ISP_FRAME
> > > ? The two comments could do with a bit of brush up, and I think the
> > > ISP_FRAME_IN interrupt could be disabled as it doesn't perform any
> > > action.
> >
> > Those two oneline comments are just copy-paste from the datasheet.
> >
> > ""
> > 5 MIS_FRAME_IN sampled input frame is complete
> > 1 MIS_FRAME frame was completely put out
> > ""
> >
> > Unfrotunately, the datasheet does not add any further explanation about those signals.
>
> My loose recollection is that the former is signaled when then frame
> is fully input to the ISP and the latter when the ISP completes
> outputting the frame to the next block in the pipeline, but someone
> would need to verify this, for example by printing timestamps for all
> the various interrupts.
>
> > >
> > > > + if (isp_mis & CIF_ISP_FRAME) {
> > > > + u32 isp_ris = 0;
> > >
> > > No need to initialise this to 0.
> > >
> > > > + /* Clear Frame In (ISP) */
> > > > + writel(CIF_ISP_FRAME, base + CIF_ISP_ICR);
> > > > + isp_mis_tmp = readl(base + CIF_ISP_MIS);
> > > > + if (isp_mis_tmp & CIF_ISP_FRAME)
> > > > + v4l2_err(&dev->v4l2_dev,
> > > > + "isp icr frame end err: 0x%x\n", isp_mis_tmp);
> > > > +
> > > > + isp_ris = readl(base + CIF_ISP_RIS);
> > > > + if (isp_ris & (CIF_ISP_AWB_DONE | CIF_ISP_AFM_FIN |
> > > > + CIF_ISP_EXP_END | CIF_ISP_HIST_MEASURE_RDY))
> > > > + rkisp1_stats_isr(&dev->stats_vdev, isp_ris);
> > >
> > > Is there a guarantee that the statistics will be fully written out
> > > before the video frame itself ? And doesn't this test if any of the
> > > statistics is complete, not all of them ? I think the logic is wrong, it
> >
> > The datasheet does not add any explanation of what is expected to come first.
> > Should we wait until all statistics measurements are done? In the struct
> > sent to userspace there is a bitmaks for which of the statistics are read.
> > I think that if only part of the statistics are ready, we can already send the once
> > that are ready to userspace.
>
> If we look further into the code, rkisp1_stats_isr() checks the
> interrupt status mask passed to it and reads out only the parameters
> with indicated completion. The statistics metadata buffer format
> includes a bit mask which tells the userspace which measurements are
> available.
>
> However, I think I've spotted a bug there. At the beginning of
> rkisp1_stats_isr(), all the 4 interrupt status bits are cleared,
> regardless of the mask used later to decide which readouts need to be
> done. This could mean that with an unfortunate timing, some measurements
> would be lost. So at least the code should be fixed to only clear the
> interrupts bits really handled.
>
> As for whether to send separate buffers for each measurement, I guess
> it's not a bad thing to let the userspace access the ones available
> earlier. Now I only don't recall why we decided to put all the
> measurements into one metadata structure, rather than splitting the 4
> into their own structures and buffer queues...
>
> > > seems it should be moved out of the CIF_ISP_FRAME test, to a test of its
> > > own. It's hard to tell for sure without extra information though (for
> > > instance why are the stats-related bits read from CIF_ISP_RIS, when
> > > they seem to be documented as valid in CIF_ISP_ISR), but this should be
> > > validated, and most probably fixed. Care should be taken to keep
> > > synchronisation of sequence number between the different queues.
> >
> > I see that the capture buffers are done before incrementing the frame_sequence with
> > the following explanation:
> >
> > /*
> > * Call rkisp1_capture_isr() first to handle the frame that
> > * potentially completed using the current frame_sequence number before
> > * it is potentially incremented by rkisp1_isp_isr() in the vertical
> > * sync.
> > */
> >
> > I think reading the stats/params should also be done before calling rkisp1_capture_isr
> > for the same reason. (so to match the correct frame_sequence)
>
> My recollection of the sequence of interrupts in this hardware is like
> this:
>
> CIF_ISP_V_START (frame 0)
> CIF_ISP_FRAME_IN (frame 0)
> CIF_ISP_FRAME (frame 0)
> CIF_ISP_AWB_DONE
> CIF_ISP_AFM_FIN
> CIF_ISP_EXP_END
> CIF_ISP_HIST_MEASURE_RDY
> CIF_MI_FRAME*
> CIF_ISP_V_START (frame 1)
> CIF_ISP_FRAME_IN (frame 1)
> CIF_ISP_FRAME (frame 1)
> ...
>
> where the interrupts at the same indentation level can happen
> independently of each other. Again, someone would have to verify this.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list