drivers: video: Add ov5642 camera driver #97106

Hardevsinh-Palaniya · 2025-10-07T11:47:53Z

Add driver to support ov5642 camera sensor

github-actions · 2025-10-07T11:48:33Z

Hello @hardevsinh-1, and thank you very much for your first pull request to the Zephyr project!
Our Continuous Integration pipeline will execute a series of checks on your Pull Request commit messages and code, and you are expected to address any failures by updating the PR. Please take a look at our commit message guidelines to find out how to format your commit messages, and at our contribution workflow to understand how to update your Pull Request. If you haven't already, please make sure to review the project's Contributor Expectations and update (by amending and force-pushing the commits) your pull request if necessary.
If you are stuck or need help please join us on Discord and ask your question there. Additionally, you can escalate the review when applicable. 😊

avolmat-st · 2025-10-07T12:07:40Z

Thanks @hardevsinh-1 for this PR.

There is already an existing driver for the OV5640 sensor. Having very very rapidly checked the difference between the OV5642 and the OV5640, it seems that the OV5642 has less features than the OV5640, having for example only DVP support and limited to 720p maximum frames.
However, considering the numbering of the sensor I am wondering if the sensor behavior might be close enough to the OV5640 so that we could reuse the OV5640 sensor driver to also drive this new OV5642 sensor.
If that is so, and OV5642 is a "subset" of the OV5640, we might be able to make some of the OV5640 features optional or at least checked at runtime if applicable and have both OV5640 / OV5642 handled by the same driver.

Do you know the differences between the OV5640 and the OV5642 and the difference in the way to control it ? Looking very rapidly, it seems that at least on some aspects it is very similar to the OV5640.

Of course if the sensor are very different or if the way to control them is very different, then it makes sense to have a different driver.

Hardevsinh-Palaniya · 2025-10-08T05:49:25Z

Thanks @hardevsinh-1 for this PR.

There is already an existing driver for the OV5640 sensor. Having very very rapidly checked the difference between the OV5642 and the OV5640, it seems that the OV5642 has less features than the OV5640, having for example only DVP support and limited to 720p maximum frames. However, considering the numbering of the sensor I am wondering if the sensor behavior might be close enough to the OV5640 so that we could reuse the OV5640 sensor driver to also drive this new OV5642 sensor. If that is so, and OV5642 is a "subset" of the OV5640, we might be able to make some of the OV5640 features optional or at least checked at runtime if applicable and have both OV5640 / OV5642 handled by the same driver.

Do you know the differences between the OV5640 and the OV5642 and the difference in the way to control it ? Looking very rapidly, it seems that at least on some aspects it is very similar to the OV5640.

Of course if the sensor are very different or if the way to control them is very different, then it makes sense to have a different driver.

@avolmat-st, Thanks for the review.
After comparing the OV5640 and OV5642 sensors and their drivers, here are the key points:

Register maps differ (clock, PLL, exposure, gain, and ISP controls).
OV5642 lacks AF and advanced ISP blocks present in OV5640.
DVP timing parameters also differ, and applying OV5640’s settings leads to jitter or frame corruption.
The initialization flow and power-up timings differ , reusing OV5640’s sequence causes I²C lockups. Sharing one driver would add unnecessary complexity.

Given these differences, what would you recommend ?

Hardevsinh-Palaniya · 2025-10-11T06:05:43Z

Thanks @hardevsinh-1 for this PR.
There is already an existing driver for the OV5640 sensor. Having very very rapidly checked the difference between the OV5642 and the OV5640, it seems that the OV5642 has less features than the OV5640, having for example only DVP support and limited to 720p maximum frames. However, considering the numbering of the sensor I am wondering if the sensor behavior might be close enough to the OV5640 so that we could reuse the OV5640 sensor driver to also drive this new OV5642 sensor. If that is so, and OV5642 is a "subset" of the OV5640, we might be able to make some of the OV5640 features optional or at least checked at runtime if applicable and have both OV5640 / OV5642 handled by the same driver.
Do you know the differences between the OV5640 and the OV5642 and the difference in the way to control it ? Looking very rapidly, it seems that at least on some aspects it is very similar to the OV5640.
Of course if the sensor are very different or if the way to control them is very different, then it makes sense to have a different driver.

@avolmat-st, Thanks for the review. After comparing the OV5640 and OV5642 sensors and their drivers, here are the key points:

Register maps differ (clock, PLL, exposure, gain, and ISP controls).

OV5642 lacks AF and advanced ISP blocks present in OV5640.

DVP timing parameters also differ, and applying OV5640’s settings leads to jitter or frame corruption.

The initialization flow and power-up timings differ , reusing OV5640’s sequence causes I²C lockups. Sharing one driver would add unnecessary complexity.

Given these differences, what would you recommend ?

Hi @avolmat-st, did you get a chance to review my comparison between the OV5640 and OV5642 sensors?
I’d like to know your thoughts on whether keeping a separate driver still makes the most sense.
could you please reply?

josuah

Thank you for this new driver!

Image sensor drivers are almost just configuration data.

I agree that it is worth considering de-duplicating all the code with ~~ov5640.c~~ video_common.c.

It might be possible to reduce the driver by a fair 50% once all video APIs are in place.

It is maybe surprising that copying an existing image sensor driver as much as possible leads to a lot of requests for modifications, but this is because image sensor currently in Zephyr almost all need a round of refactoring and I am very late on this!

Finally, you would need to add an extra commit to add this sensor to the build_all test:
https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/main/tests/drivers/build_all/video/app.overlay

drivers/video/ov5642.c

dts/bindings/video/ovti,ov5642.yaml

Hardevsinh-Palaniya · 2025-10-13T10:29:39Z

Thank you for this new driver!

Image sensor drivers are almost just configuration data.

I agree that it is worth considering de-duplicating all the code with ~~ov5640.c~~ video_common.c.

It might be possible to reduce the driver by a fair 50% once all video APIs are in place.

It is maybe surprising that copying an existing image sensor driver as much as possible leads to a lot of requests for modifications, but this is because image sensor currently in Zephyr almost all need a round of refactoring and I am very late on this!

Finally, you would need to add an extra commit to add this sensor to the build_all test: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/main/tests/drivers/build_all/video/app.overlay

@josuah , Thanks for the reviewing. I will update the same.

josuah

Thank you for the changes!
It seems almost ready, with just a few minor coding style tuning but otherwise seems ready to me.
One more cycle to go!

drivers/video/ov5642.c

josuah

Thank you for the edits!
I think there might be one more round needed as I changed my mind after doing other reviews and gave wrong instructions last time (sorry!).

Maybe other reviewers will find other things after that but for my part I think that's all of it after this round.

drivers/video/ov5642.c

Hardevsinh-Palaniya · 2025-10-19T06:52:39Z

Thank you for the edits! I think there might be one more round needed as I changed my mind after doing other reviews and gave wrong instructions last time (sorry!).

Maybe other reviewers will find other things after that but for my part I think that's all of it after this round.

Thanks @josuah , I’m interested in adjusting these lines. I’ve made changes based on your suggestions. Could you please review them?

josuah

Thank you for the edits! The driver looks ready now.
But there is a "merge commit" that appeared, and you need to remove it.
Then this driver can be merged I think.

josuah · 2025-10-19T21:05:29Z

drivers/video/ov5642.c

+
+#define PI 3.141592654
+
+#define ABS(a, b) (a > b ? a - b : b - a)


It seems like you are now using the libc <stdlib.h> version abs() now, so you do not need this define.

josuah · 2025-10-24T10:11:14Z

Good catch for chip_id = tmp.

I think you still need to remove the merge commits:

If you wish to catch-up with latest Zephyr main branch, you need to avoid git merge and instead use git rebase, or it will create "merge commits" like seen above.

Now you would need to remove them, for instance with git reset --hard HEAD~2 and then git fetch origin && git rebase origin/main (not tested, just to illustrate).

Feel free to reach on the Discord chat if you wanted to troubleshoot this interactively https://discord.com/invite/Ck7jw53nU2

ngphibang · 2025-11-13T09:27:12Z

drivers/video/ov5642.c

+	case VIDEO_EXPOSURE_AUTO:
+		ret = video_modify_cci_reg(&cfg->i2c,
+					   AEC_PK_CCI, BIT(0), 0);
+
+		break;
+	case VIDEO_EXPOSURE_MANUAL:
+		ret = video_modify_cci_reg(&cfg->i2c,
+					   AEC_PK_CCI, BIT(0), BIT(0));
+		break;


These two cases can be folded and may add a TODO to remember adding support for manual mode ?

case VIDEO_EXPOSURE_AUTO: case VIDEO_EXPOSURE_MANUAL: /* TODO: Add support for manual exposure mode */ ret = video_modify_cci_reg(&cfg->i2c, AEC_PK_CCI, BIT(0), value == VIDEO_EXPOSURE_AUTO ? BIT(0), 0);

ngphibang · 2025-11-13T09:33:12Z

drivers/video/ov5642.c

+	default:
+		return -EINVAL;


These two cases need to be added as "unsupported" ?

case: VIDEO_EXPOSURE_SHUTTER_PRIORITY: VIDEO_EXPOSURE_APERTURE_PRIORITY: return -ENOTSUP;

then the default case:

default: CODE_UNREACHABLE;

as the video framework already handles values out of the control value range.

ngphibang · 2025-11-14T09:19:47Z

drivers/video/ov5642.c

+	case VIDEO_EXPOSURE_AUTO:
+	case VIDEO_EXPOSURE_MANUAL:
+		/* TODO: Add support for manual exposure mode */
+		ret = video_modify_cci_reg(&cfg->i2c, AEC_PK_CCI, BIT(0),
+					   value == VIDEO_EXPOSURE_AUTO ? 0 : BIT(0));
+		break;


Given that VIDEO_EXPOSURE_AUTO = 0 and VIDEO_EXPOSURE_MANUAL = 1, this can be simplified a bit more ?

`ret = video_modify_cci_reg(&cfg->i2c, AEC_PK_CCI, BIT(0), value);`

ngphibang

LGTM. Thanks !

Hardevsinh-Palaniya · 2025-11-14T11:56:50Z

@avolmat-st and @josuah, could you please review again?

Hardevsinh-Palaniya · 2025-11-17T12:37:54Z

@avolmat-st and @josuah, please review this PR again and let me know your input if I need to update anything.

avolmat-st

Hi,
sorry for the delay. This looks good to me. Few multi-lines calls could be done in single line but that's really nitpicking so I am all fine with the current code as well.
Thanks.

avolmat-st · 2025-11-18T09:45:07Z

drivers/video/ov5642.c

+		{SDE_CTRL2_REG, abs(sin_coef)}
+	};
+
+	ret = video_modify_cci_reg(&cfg->i2c, SDE_CTRL10_CCI, 0x7F,


Nitpicking: can fit in one line.

avolmat-st · 2025-11-18T09:45:29Z

drivers/video/ov5642.c

+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	return video_write_cci_multiregs16(&cfg->i2c, hue_params,


Nitpicking: can fit in one line.

avolmat-st · 2025-11-18T09:46:01Z

drivers/video/ov5642.c

+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	ret = video_modify_cci_reg(&cfg->i2c, SDE_CTRL10_CCI, BIT(2),


Nitpicking: can fit in one line.

avolmat-st · 2025-11-18T09:46:16Z

drivers/video/ov5642.c

+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	return video_write_cci_reg(&cfg->i2c, SDE_CTRL9_CCI,


Nitpicking: can fit in one line.

avolmat-st · 2025-11-18T09:46:59Z

drivers/video/ov5642.c

+
+	switch (id) {
+	case VIDEO_CID_HFLIP:
+		return video_modify_cci_reg(&cfg->i2c,


Nitpicking: can fit in two lines ? same below ?

@avolmat-st , Thanks for the suggestions. I have updated the PR to resolve alignment according to the suggestions. No other changes related to logic.

@avolmat-st, @ngphibang and @josuah, Please review it again.

avolmat-st

Thanks. Approved.

ngphibang · 2025-11-19T09:57:35Z

drivers/video/CMakeLists.txt

+zephyr_library_sources_ifdef(CONFIG_VIDEO_STM32_JPEG	video_stm32_jpeg.c)
+zephyr_library_sources_ifdef(CONFIG_VIDEO_HIMAX_HM01B0  hm01b0.c)


unrelated changes

Thanks @ngphibang , It was a rebase issue. I resolved it.

Add driver to support ov5642 camera sensor Co-developed-by: Rutvij Trivedi <rutvij.trivedi@siliconsignals.io> Signed-off-by: Rutvij Trivedi <rutvij.trivedi@siliconsignals.io> Signed-off-by: Hardevsinh Palaniya <hardevsinh.palaniya@siliconsignals.io>

sonarqubecloud · 2025-11-19T11:01:49Z

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
1.5% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

github-actions · 2025-11-19T20:57:44Z

Hi @Hardevsinh-Palaniya!
Congratulations on getting your very first Zephyr pull request merged 🎉🥳. This is a fantastic achievement, and we're thrilled to have you as part of our community!

To celebrate this milestone and showcase your contribution, we'd love to award you the Zephyr Technical Contributor badge. If you're interested, please claim your badge by filling out this form: Claim Your Zephyr Badge.

Thank you for your valuable input, and we look forward to seeing more of your contributions in the future! 🪁

zephyrbot added area: Boards/SoCs area: Video Video subsystem area: Devicetree Bindings labels Oct 7, 2025

zephyrbot requested review from avolmat-st, josuah, loicpoulain and ngphibang October 7, 2025 11:49

zephyrbot assigned josuah and ngphibang Oct 7, 2025

josuah reviewed Oct 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from 596b096 to f7d02c4 Compare October 14, 2025 07:18

zephyrbot added the area: Tests Issues related to a particular existing or missing test label Oct 14, 2025

zephyrbot requested a review from nashif October 14, 2025 07:21

josuah reviewed Oct 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

drivers/video/ov5642.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

josuah reviewed Oct 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

drivers/video/ov5642.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

josuah reviewed Oct 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

drivers/video/ov5642.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from f7d02c4 to dfcf0fe Compare October 16, 2025 07:18

josuah reviewed Oct 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

drivers/video/ov5642.c Show resolved Hide resolved

drivers/video/ov5642.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

drivers/video/ov5642.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from dfcf0fe to 3d83017 Compare October 19, 2025 06:43

josuah reviewed Oct 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from 052f7ce to 42ae093 Compare October 24, 2025 05:18

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from 42ae093 to 49a9390 Compare October 24, 2025 10:40

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from 673ed08 to 0bee337 Compare November 12, 2025 11:26

Hardevsinh-Palaniya requested a review from ngphibang November 12, 2025 11:27

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from 0bee337 to 4f83c1c Compare November 12, 2025 11:31

ngphibang reviewed Nov 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from 4f83c1c to dc90d33 Compare November 13, 2025 10:24

ngphibang reviewed Nov 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from dc90d33 to 5917aae Compare November 14, 2025 10:50

ngphibang previously approved these changes Nov 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

Hardevsinh-Palaniya requested a review from avolmat-st November 14, 2025 11:55

avolmat-st previously approved these changes Nov 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

Hardevsinh-Palaniya dismissed stale reviews from avolmat-st and ngphibang via c467b40 November 19, 2025 04:41

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from c467b40 to 439ae27 Compare November 19, 2025 05:29

Hardevsinh-Palaniya requested review from avolmat-st and ngphibang November 19, 2025 05:29

avolmat-st previously approved these changes Nov 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

Hardevsinh-Palaniya dismissed avolmat-st’s stale review via 1023925 November 19, 2025 09:29

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from 439ae27 to 1023925 Compare November 19, 2025 09:29

Hardevsinh-Palaniya requested a review from avolmat-st November 19, 2025 09:30

ngphibang reviewed Nov 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

Hardevsinh-Palaniya force-pushed the Add-driver-for-ov5642-camera branch from 1023925 to c50c81f Compare November 19, 2025 10:34

avolmat-st approved these changes Nov 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

Hardevsinh-Palaniya requested a review from ngphibang November 19, 2025 14:56

ngphibang approved these changes Nov 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

nashif merged commit c784481 into zephyrproject-rtos:main Nov 19, 2025
26 checks passed


		#define PI 3.141592654

		#define ABS(a, b) (a > b ? a - b : b - a)

		zephyr_library_sources_ifdef(CONFIG_VIDEO_STM32_JPEG video_stm32_jpeg.c)
		zephyr_library_sources_ifdef(CONFIG_VIDEO_HIMAX_HM01B0 hm01b0.c)

drivers: video: Add ov5642 camera driver #97106

drivers: video: Add ov5642 camera driver #97106

Conversation

Hardevsinh-Palaniya commented Oct 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Oct 7, 2025

Uh oh!

avolmat-st commented Oct 7, 2025

Uh oh!

Hardevsinh-Palaniya commented Oct 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Hardevsinh-Palaniya commented Oct 11, 2025

Uh oh!

josuah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Hardevsinh-Palaniya commented Oct 13, 2025

Uh oh!

josuah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

josuah left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Hardevsinh-Palaniya commented Oct 19, 2025

Uh oh!

josuah left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

josuah commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

ngphibang Nov 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ngphibang Nov 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ngphibang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Hardevsinh-Palaniya commented Nov 14, 2025

Uh oh!

Hardevsinh-Palaniya commented Nov 17, 2025

Uh oh!

avolmat-st left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Hardevsinh-Palaniya commented Oct 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

josuah left a comment •

edited

Loading

ngphibang Nov 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

ngphibang Nov 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading