• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Answers 2 answers
  • Subscribers 98 subscribers
  • Views 753 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

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.

Linux/AM5718: Dual MIPI camera issue

Yong Hee Nam
Prodigy 200 points
Part Number: AM5718


Tool/software: Linux

Hello.

I designed AM5718 with 2 channel MIPI camera (OV7251, 640x480 10 bits/pixel).

2 MIPI cameras are interconnected with CAL driver.

My goal is capturing 100 frame / sec for each camera.

Expose time and camera register settings are correct.

When I  capture images from camera through V4L2 driver, it is 50 frames / sec.

But only one camera it shows 100 frames / sec.

My question is that when I use 2 MIPI cameras, is above situation can be occur for multiple MIPI interfaces?

(Is total bandwidth can be slower down as camera attached increases?)

Best regards.

 

  • 0
    TI__Guru**** 393215 points
    The software team have been notified. They will respond here.
  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 22946 points
    Wondering if application is releasing buffer timely to maintain 100fps capture rate.

    Could you run two instances of Yavta and share the fps log? Example below -
    yavta -c -fYUYV -F/dev/null -s640x480 /dev/videox
  • 0 in reply to Manisha Agrawal
    Prodigy 200 points
    Hello Manisha.
    Thanks for your reply.
    This is a camera 1-ch camera log.
    Now second camera was dead and I'm now repairing. After repairing I'll post for 2-ch log.

    2672 (0) [-] none 2672 614400 B 205.112442 205.112462 99.118 fps ts mono/EoF
    2673 (1) [-] none 2673 614400 B 205.122531 205.122551 99.118 fps ts mono/EoF
    2674 (2) [-] none 2674 614400 B 205.132621 205.132641 99.108 fps ts mono/EoF
    2675 (3) [-] none 2675 614400 B 205.142709 205.142728 99.128 fps ts mono/EoF
    2676 (4) [-] none 2676 614400 B 205.152799 205.152818 99.108 fps ts mono/EoF
    2677 (5) [-] none 2677 614400 B 205.162888 205.162908 99.118 fps ts mono/EoF
    2678 (6) [-] none 2678 614400 B 205.172977 205.172997 99.118 fps ts mono/EoF
    2679 (7) [-] none 2679 614400 B 205.183066 205.183086 99.118 fps ts mono/EoF
    2680 (0) [-] none 2680 614400 B 205.193156 205.193176 99.108 fps ts mono/EoF
    2681 (1) [-] none 2681 614400 B 205.203245 205.203264 99.118 fps ts mono/EoF
    2682 (2) [-] none 2682 614400 B 205.213333 205.213353 99.128 fps ts mono/EoF
    2683 (3) [-] none 2683 614400 B 205.223422 205.223442 99.118 fps ts mono/EoF
  • 0 in reply to Manisha Agrawal
    Prodigy 200 points
    Hello Manisha.
    I found something went wrong in our capture program.
    Using mmap() makes slow down the capture speed.
    Sorry and thanks
    Best regards.
  • 0 in reply to Yong Hee Nam
    TI__Mastermind 22946 points

    Thanks Yong Hee for the update. Glad you were able to resolve the issue.