Device Revision 0x3110 (Fast-Boot device), FWPATCH and VTPATCH
Hello,
I am currently working with the STEVAL-66GYMAI evaluation board and the VD66GY sensor in a host-managed architecture where sensor I²C accesses are initiated from the PC.
While reviewing the documentation and the supplied drivers, I found what appears to be an inconsistency and would like to clarify the expected behavior.
According to UM2602 - How to integrate and configure the VD56G3, VD66GY and VD16GZ devices:
- Section 10 (Firmware Patch) states that a firmware patch must be loaded during the READY_TO_BOOT state.
- Section 11 (VT Patch) states that a VT patch must be loaded during the SW_STANDBY state.
However, in the current ST driver (vd6g.c) from the camera middleware, stm32-mw-camera/sensors/vd6g/vd6g.c at main · STMicroelectronics/stm32-mw-camera · GitHub
the patch-loading functions appear to be bypassed for Fast-Boot devices:
case VD6G_TOP_DIE_FAST_BOOT:
ret = 0;
break;
This behavior exists in both:
VD6G_ApplyPatch()
VD6G_ApplyVtPatch()
My sensor report:
Model ID : 0x5603
Device Revision : 0x3110
ROM Revision : 0x0420
the driver interprets the upper byte (0x31) as:
VD6G_TOP_DIE_FAST_BOOT
Based on this, the current driver does not execute either the Firmware Patch or VT Patch upload procedure for this sensor revision.
I also checked: FWPATCH_REVISION (0x001E) = 0x0000
VT revision registers:
0x0020 = 0x11
0x0024 = 0x11
0x0026 = 0x11
I have attached the current vd6g.c file which iam using.
My questions are:
- For Device Revision
0x3110(Fast-Boot device), are FWPATCH and VTPATCH uploads intentionally skipped and no longer required?
Is FWPATCH_REVISION = 0x0000 the expected behavior for this device revision?
2.Should a host-managed implementation still perform the Firmware Patch and VT Patch upload procedures described in UM2602, or should it follow the current driver behavior and skip them?
3. Is there a newer VD66GY driver implementation that changes this behavior?