[PATCH v8 05/14] media: rkisp1: add Rockchip ISP1 subdev driver
Dafna Hirschfeld
dafna.hirschfeld at collabora.com
Fri Aug 7 12:08:47 EDT 2020
Hi
Am 06.08.20 um 14:22 schrieb Tomasz Figa:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:21 AM Dafna Hirschfeld
> <dafna.hirschfeld at collabora.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 05.08.20 um 23:10 schrieb Dafna Hirschfeld:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 22.07.20 17:24, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>> Hi Dafna,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 01:04:31PM +0200, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote:
>>>>> Hi Laurent,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16.08.19 02:13, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Helen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for the patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + 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.
>>>
>>> I'll fix that
>>
>> I actually don't think this is a bug. The statistics interrupts are not
>> enabled and are read from the raw interrupts register. This means
>> that if we missed a statistics for the current frame and we don't reset it
>> then we will read it only when the next frame comes out, so it will be
>> wrongly set as statistics for the next frame although it is actually for the
>> current frame.
>
> Yes, I noticed that the driver attempts to reduce the number of
> interrupts by assuming that the ISP statistics can be read after the
> MIS_FRAME interrupt. However, in this case, I don't think we can ever
> miss statistics for a frame (unless the system is broken and has
> unacceptable interrupt latencies) nor the unfortunate timing I
> suggested before could ever take place.
So we actually don't even need the `meas_type` bitmask that tells which
statistics are in in the struct. Should I send a patch removing it?
Maybe just to be on the safe side I can add a WARNING in case not all
statistics are ready or or at least a debugfs variable.
Thanks,
Dafna
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dafna
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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...
>>>
>>> Is it possible to have several queues to the same video node?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I wrote this patch to print the interrupts and the time difference between interrupts:
>>> https://gitlab.collabora.com/dafna/linux/-/commit/9b9c5ddc2f06a6b87d2c1b210219f69de83296c5
>>>
>>> I got this output: http://ix.io/2tl8,
>>> there is a repeating pattern where only v-start interrupt is sent, indicated by the prints "isp mis 0x00000040" then about 23 milisec later are the other interrupts
>>> (FRAME_IN, FRAME, MI_FRAME* ) and about 10 milisec the v-start interrupt again.
>>>
>>> I am still not sure why the mi_frame interrupt should be handled first. If it happen for example that all the interrupts arrive at once, how can
>>> we know that the MI_FRAME interrupt relates to the previous v-start interrupt and not the current one?
>>> I think that for that we need a code that keep track of the previous interrupt.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dafna
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Tomasz
>>>>
>
More information about the Linux-rockchip
mailing list