• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 33 subscribers
  • Views 499 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

DS90UB960-Q1: FPD link III Video matrix system

Thomas Jensen
Prodigy 10 points
Part Number: DS90UB960-Q1
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: DS90UB933-Q1, DS90UB948-Q1, DS90UB947-Q1, DS90UB940-Q1


Hello Texas Instruments.

We are planning to integrate FPD-link3 in two different automotive camera types and in our video matrix system.

We are already using two different types of cameras with digital video output,

we would like to chose the the right serializes, that fits the two camera types, and the right de-serializes for the video matrix.

1. Camera type A, (640x480pixel) have Camera link video output, UART asynchronous serial control and video frame sync input.

    Does any FPD link III devices support camera link ?

2. Camera type B, (1920x1080pixel) have 10bit Y/C parallel video out, UART asynchronous serial control and video frame sync input.

3. Video matrix system FPD link de-serializes is to be interfaced Nvidia AGX Xavier digital video interface.

Video matrix de-serializer should deliver video synchronization and asynchronous serial control for all cameras.

Hope you are able to help us in selecting the right components for this system.

Best regards

Thomas Jensen

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 18755 points

    Hello Thomas,

    I think for your camera type A, something like the DS90UB933 can handle the resolution you are looking for but it uses parallel video format.  As for UART the FPD-Link ADAS devices use I2C for communication between devices.  Is there any specific reason that you want to use UART or is I2C a possibility? 

    For the camera type B the 933 can also support your resolution depending on your frame rate but again is there any reason you want to use UART?  Another option if you can use a CSI-2 interface is to use the DS90UB953 as your serializer, but if you need parallel video then the 933 is right option.

    As for deserializers something like the 954 could work with up to 2 serialziers and the 960 can work with up to 4 but they both use a CSI-2 interface.

    The DS90UB934 uses a parallel interface but only works with one serializer.

    We should be able to find something that fits your needs but I would need to know if you can move away from UART? If not then maybe we can have some kind of intermediary device to convert.  Let me know what flexibility we have on communication/video formats.

    Regards,

    Nick

  • 0 in reply to Nicholas Darash
    Prodigy 10 points

    The reason for the asynchronous serial interface is that the basic camera module is born with this.

    This means that a protocol converter between i2C and asynchronous UART will be necessary.

    With regard to Camera Link interface i was hoping that one of your devices was compatible with this as

    i understand that CL interface originates from National semiconductor.

    Best regards

    Thomas Jensen

  • 0 in reply to Thomas Jensen
    TI__Guru** 103215 points

    Hello Thomas,

    Camera Link follows the same physical layer format at OpenLDI, so it would be supported by devices in our portfolio such as DS90UB927-Q1, DS90UB928-Q1, DS90UB947-Q1, or DS90UB948-Q1. However these devices are not compatible with DS90UB960-Q1, and we do not have any serializers which are compatible with 960 that take LVDS/OLDI inputs as the input (only DVP or CSI-2). Camera #2 could be supported by DS90UB933-Q1 most likely (depending on the required PCLK) in conjunction with 960. 

    For camera #1 you could implement something like DS90UB947-Q1 -> DS90UB940-Q1 to convert camera link to CSI-2, but we don't have a hub style device like 960 which could pair with multiple camera like this. It would be a point to point connection

    Best Regards,

    Casey