Hi Bingbu,

On 23/09/2021 12:49, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

Hi Bingbu,

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:29:33AM +0000, Cao, Bingbu wrote:

quoted

On Thursday, September 23, 2021 5:46 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:06:32AM +0000, Cao, Bingbu wrote:

quoted

Jean-Michel,

Firstly, the .height_per_slice could be 0 if your .grid.width larger
than 32.

Which .height_per_slice are you talking about ? A field of that name
exists in both ipu3_uapi_acc_param.awb.config.grid and struct
ipu3_uapi_grid_config and imgu_abi_awb_config.stripes.grid.

They are both computed by the driver, in imgu_css_cfg_acc(). The former
is set to

	acc->awb.config.grid.height_per_slice =
		IMGU_ABI_AWB_MAX_CELLS_PER_SET / acc->awb.config.grid.width,

IMGU_ABI_AWB_MAX_CELLS_PER_SET is equal to 160, so it can only be 0 if
grid.width > 160, which is invalid.

For awb_fr and af, it could be 0 if the .config.grid_cfg.width > 32.

Indeed, my bad. I was focussing on the AWB statistics.

What are the implications of a height_per_slice value of 0 ?

While we are on this topic, what is a "slice" ? Does it matter for the
user, as in does it have an impact on the statistics values, or on how
they're arranged in memory, or is it an implementation detail of the
firmware that has no consequence on what can be seen by the user ? (The
"user" here is the code that reads the statistics in userspace).

Gentle ping on these specific questions from Laurent :-) ?

quoted

quoted

quoted

From your configuration, looks like something wrong in the stripe
configuration cause not entering the 2 stripes branch.

Why is that ? Isn't it valid for a grid configuration to use a single
stripe, if the image is small enough, or if the grid only covers the left
part of the image ?

quoted

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 1:54 PM, Jean-Michel Hautbois wrote:

quoted

On 22/09/2021 06:33, Cao, Bingbu wrote:

quoted

Jean-Michel,

Thanks for you patch.
What is the value of .config.grid_cfg.width for your low resolutions?

I don't know if a 1920x1280 output is a low resolution, but the grid
is configured as:
- grid_cfg.width = 79
- grid_cfg.height = 24
- grid_cfg.block_width_log2 = 4
- grid_cfg.block_height_log2 = 6

Here is a full debug output of the AWB part in imgu_css_cfg_acc():

acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[0].width: 1280
acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[0].height: 1536
acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[0].offset: 0
acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[0].width: 1280
acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[0].height: 1536
acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[0].offset: 0
acc->acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.width: 79
acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.block_width_log2: 4
acc->acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.height: 24
acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.block_height_log2: 6
acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.x_start: 0
acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.x_end: 1263
acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.y_start: 0
acc->awb.stripes[0].grid.y_end: 1535
acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[1].width: 1280
acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[1].height: 1536
acc->stripe.down_scaled_stripes[1].offset: 1024
acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[1].width: 1280
acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[1].height: 1536
acc->stripe.bds_out_stripes[1].offset: 1024
acc->acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.width: 79
acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.block_width_log2: 4
acc->acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.height: 24
acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.block_height_log2: 6
acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.x_start: 0
acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.x_end: 1263
acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.y_start: 0
acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.y_end: 1535

Are these dumps from 1920x1280 output?

Jean-Michel, could you comment on this ?

Note that the grid is configured with 79 cells of 16 pixels, covering
1264 pixels horizontally. That's not the full image for a 1920 pixels
output, and will probably not be done in practice, but there's nothing
preventing the grid from covering part of the image only.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

This has been outputted with: https://paste.debian.net/1212791/

The examples I gave before were 1280x720 output and not 1920x1080,
here are they:
- without the patch: https://pasteboard.co/hHo4QkVUSk8e.png
- with the patch: https://pasteboard.co/YUGUvS5tD0bo.png

As you can see we have the same behaviour.

quoted

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:34 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 03:04:37PM +0200, Jean-Michel Hautbois wrote:

quoted

On 21/09/2021 13:07, Sakari Ailus wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 07:25:04PM +0200, Jean-Michel Hautbois wrote:

quoted

While playing with low resolutions for the grid, it appeared
that height_per_slice is not initialised if we are not using
both stripes for the calculations. This pattern occurs three times:
- for the awb_fr processing block
- for the af processing block
- for the awb processing block

The idea of this small portion of code is to reduce complexity
in loading the statistics, it could be done also when only one
stripe is used. Fix it by getting this initialisation code
outside of the
else() test case.

Signed-off-by: Jean-Michel Hautbois <redacted>
---
 drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css-params.c | 44 >>>>> ++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css-params.c

b/drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css-params.c
index e9d6bd9e9332..05da7dbdca78 100644

--- a/drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css-params.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/media/ipu3/ipu3-css-params.c

@@ -2428,16 +2428,16 @@ int imgu_css_cfg_acc(struct imgu_css *css, unsigned int pipe,
 					acc->awb_fr.stripes[1].grid_cfg.width,
 					b_w_log2);
 		acc->awb_fr.stripes[1].grid_cfg.x_end = end;
-
-		/*
-		 * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading
-		 * statistics fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both
-		 * stripes.
-		 */
-		for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++)
-			acc->awb_fr.stripes[i].grid_cfg.height_per_slice = 1;
 	}

+	/*
+	 * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading
+	 * statistics fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both
+	 * stripes.
+	 */
+	for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++)
+		acc->awb_fr.stripes[i].grid_cfg.height_per_slice = 1;
+
 	if (imgu_css_awb_fr_ops_calc(css, pipe, &acc->awb_fr))
 		return -EINVAL;

@@ -2591,15 +2591,15 @@ int imgu_css_cfg_acc(struct imgu_css *css, unsigned int pipe,
 			imgu_css_grid_end(acc->af.stripes[1].grid_cfg.x_start,
 					  acc->af.stripes[1].grid_cfg.width,
 					  b_w_log2);
-
-		/*
-		 * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading statistics
-		 * fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both stripes
-		 */
-		for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++)
-			acc->af.stripes[i].grid_cfg.height_per_slice = 1;
 	}

+	/*
+	 * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading statistics
+	 * fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both stripes
+	 */
+	for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++)
+		acc->af.stripes[i].grid_cfg.height_per_slice = 1;
+
 	if (imgu_css_af_ops_calc(css, pipe, &acc->af))
 		return -EINVAL;

@@ -2660,15 +2660,15 @@ int imgu_css_cfg_acc(struct imgu_css *css, unsigned int pipe,
 			imgu_css_grid_end(acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.x_start,
 					  acc->awb.stripes[1].grid.width,
 					  b_w_log2);
-
-		/*
-		 * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading statistics
-		 * fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both stripes
-		 */
-		for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++)
-			acc->awb.stripes[i].grid.height_per_slice = 1;
 	}

+	/*
+	 * To reduce complexity of debubbling and loading statistics
+	 * fix grid_height_per_slice to 1 for both stripes
+	 */
+	for (i = 0; i < stripes; i++)
+		acc->awb.stripes[i].grid.height_per_slice = 1;
+
 	if (imgu_css_awb_ops_calc(css, pipe, &acc->awb))
 		return -EINVAL;

While it seems like a sensible idea to initialise arguments to
firmware, does this have an effect on the statistics format? If
so, can the existing user space cope with that?

To try and figure that out, we have tested several grid
configurations and inspected the captured statistics. We have
converted the statistics in an image, rendering each cell as a
pixel whose red, green and blue components are the cell's red, green and blue averages.
This turned out to be a very effectice tool to quickly visualize
AWB statistics.
We have made a lot of tests with different output resolutions,
from a small one up to the full-scale one.

Here is one example of a statistics output with a ViewFinder
configured as 1920x1280, with a BDS output configuration set to
2304x1536 (sensor is 2592x1944).

Without the patch, configuring a 79x45 grid of 16x16 cells we
obtain the
image: https://pasteboard.co/g4nC4fHjbVER.png.
We can notice a weird padding every two lines and it seems to be
missing half of the frame.

With the patch applied, the same configuration gives us the image:
https://pasteboard.co/rzap6axIvVdu.png

We can clearly see the one padding pixel on the right, and the
frame is all there, as expected.

Tomasz: We're concerned that this patch may have an impact on
the ChromeOS Intel Camera HAL with the IPU3. Is it possible for
someone to review and test this please?

As shown by the images above, this is a real fix. It only affects
grid configurations that use a single stripe (left or right), so
either "small" resolutions (less than 1280 pixels at the BDS
output if I recall correctly), or grid configurations that span
the left part of the image with higher resolutions. The latter is
probably unlikely. For the former, it may affect the binary
library, especially if it includes a workaround for the bug.

Still, this change is good I believe, so it should be upstreamed.