At Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:58:46 +0200 (CEST),
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > At Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:14:15 +0200 (CEST),
> > Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>
> >>> At Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:45:04 +0200 (CEST),
> >>> Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> At Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:47:30 +0200 (CEST),
> >>>>>> Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> this is yet another topic I'm (currently) working on -- the addition
> >>>>>>>> of PCM ioctls to get/set some extra attributes. Basically, it adds
> >>>>>>>> two simple ioctls for getting/setting extra attributes to the PCM
> >>>>>>>> substream. The attribute has a sort of TLV form,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> /* PCM extra attributes */
> >>>>>>>> struct snd_pcm_attr {
> >>>>>>>> unsigned int type; /* SNDRC_PCM_TYPE_ATTR_XXX */
> >>>>>>>> unsigned int len; /* GET R: the max elements in value array
> >>>>>>>> * W: the actually written # elements
> >>>>>>>> * SET R/W: # elements to store
> >>>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>>> unsigned int value[0]; /* value(s) to read / write */
> >>>>>>>> };
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And corresponding two ioctls
> >>>>>>>> #define SNDRV_PCM_IOCTL_GET_ATTR _IOWR('A', 0x14, struct snd_pcm_attr)
> >>>>>>>> #define SNDRV_PCM_IOCTL_SET_ATTR _IOWR('A', 0x15, struct snd_pcm_attr)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would prefer to implement similar TLV implementation as for the control
> >>>>>>> API. The amount of information for reading (get) will be small, so
> >>>>>>> filtering in this direction is not necessary. Also, common parts of
> >>>>>>> implementation (future merging of more TLVs to compounds) can be shared.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually it's a sort of TLV. You see exactly it in snd_pcm_attr
> >>>>>> struct, no? :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And, thinking twice after posting (that's a good effect of posting to
> >>>>>> ML, BTW), I feel that using a callback would be a better way, such as
> >>>>>> re-using the existing ops->ioctl with a new cmd tag rather than the
> >>>>>> statically assigned thing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A similar method like control TLV can be used, too. However, a
> >>>>>> distinct from the existing control TLV is that this is intended for
> >>>>>> just one type of information while the control TLV is supposed to
> >>>>>> contain everything in a single shot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is, this is a query with a key. In that sense, sharing a small
> >>>>>> amount of control TLV code (about 10 lines) doesn't give a big
> >>>>>> benefit. In anyways, it's a implementation detail, so one could
> >>>>>> optimize somehow, though...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't mean current implementation. TLVs can be nested. In this case, we
> >>>>> need a set of functions which operates with TLVs (merging). These
> >>>>> functions can be shared. It's also possible to share TLV code in
> >>>>> the user space (search). But it's really implementation detail. We should
> >>>>> focus on ioctl definitions now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would defined 'struct snd_pcm_attr' as 'struct snd_tlv' - it's same as
> >>>>> for control API.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The control API has:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SNDRV_CTL_IOCTL_TLV_READ - read all static information
> >>>>> SNDRV_CTL_IOCTL_TLV_WRITE - write static information (userspace controls)
> >>>>> SNDRV_CTL_IOCTL_TLV_COMMAND - change some setup
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, SNDRV_CTL_IOCTL_TLV_COMMAND == SNDRV_PCM_IOCTL_SET_ATTR in your
> >>>>> proposal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SNDRV_CTL_IOCTL_TLV_WRITE is not probably useable unless we have virtual
> >>>>> user-space PCM interface kernel implementation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SNDRV_CTL_IOCTL_TLV_READ might make sense for static-only information
> >>>>> which don't change between open()/close() syscalls for given substream.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SNDRV_PCM_IOCTL_GET_ATTR cannot be mapped at this time. Might be something
> >>>>> like TLV_READONE, TLV_CONFIG, TLV_SETUP, TLV_GET or so - what's better
> >>>>> for COMMAND word, if we agree on common names for all kernel interfaces.
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW: It's also question, if to divide TLVs to static/configuration ones.
> >>>> TLV_READ might just return all TLVs and TLV_READONE filter only one, if
> >>>> user space does not want to obtain all information.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to preserve TLV_READ to obtain all TLVs for possible user
> >>>> space enumeration (for example for debugging purposes) rather that do a
> >>>> single query for all possible TLV types.
> >>>
> >>> I disagree with "all-in-on-TLV" strategy. That makes life much harder.
> >>> Sorry, it's no go.
> >>
> >> Sorry, the implementation can be more simple than you think. Imagine just
> >> a TLV callback in the lowlevel driver and switch/case statement in the
> >> callback. We can define a special type in kernel that queries for all
> >> present TLV types (bitmap) and the ioctl TLV_READ implementation can just
> >> compose results from single queries. So, the code in the lowlevel driver
> >> will grow only with 4 (or less) lines:
> >>
> >> case TLV_TYPES:
> >> tlv.length = 4;
> >> tlv.data[0] = (1<<TLV_CHANNEL_MAP) | (1<<TLV_CONTROL_IDS);
> >> return 0;
> >
> > Sorry I can't draw a picture from your explanation.
> > How can it compose a "all-in-one" TLV at each time?
>
> The tlv_read ioctl will be something like this (simplified without
> proper length and allocation handling):
>
> tlv_types.type = TLV_TYPES;
> tlv_callback(tlv_types);
> idx = 0;
> while (tlv_types[0] && (tlv_types[0] & (1 << idx)) != 0) {
> tlv.type = idx;
> tlv_callback(tlv);
> merge_tlv(result, tlv);
> tlv_types[0] &= ~(1 << idx);
> idx++;
> }
>
> > What I'm talking is like the scenario below:
> >
> > - app open PCM, do hw_params
> > - app requires the channel map, get one
> > - app changes hw_params again, then get channel map again
> >
> > With "all-in-one" TLV, you have to read all the information at each
> > time you get channel maps because the channel map is to be generated
> > dynamically. At each time, the kernel needs to gather all
> > information, compose into a single big TLV, and copy it. Then
> > user-space decomposes the big TLV, look for a specific tag, then picks
> > up the value there.
> >
> > Why not simply query a value and get a value a la normal ioctl?
>
> I'm talking about to have both "all-in-one" and single value ioctls. I see
> your optimization when one value is required to read multiple times. I
> just prefer to make things similar to the control interface (although
> single value read is not implemented in current control API, but it might
> be added later, if required).
The single read *is* required. That's why I don't want "all-in-one"
TLV at all because it makes thing more complicated in such a case.
> I would like to see also common naming in
> interfaces like:
>
> SNDRV_PCM_IOCTL_TLV_READ # read all
> SNDRV_PCM_IOCTL_TLV_COMMAND # write one or more TLVs (COMPOUND type)
> SNDRV_PCM_IOCTL_TLV_TREAD # read only one TLV specified by type
> # TREAD might be also READONE or so..
We can forget about the compatibility with the control API first.
The benefit comes only if the all-in-one TLV API fits better than
other simpler ones.
The advantage of all-in-one TLV is when the app wants to know
*everything*, like a number 42. But, is such a situation really
often? No, mostly you want to know a certain information.
Or, think from a different direction: what's wrong when the driver
accepts a special query key "GIVE_ME_ALL" that returns the all-in-one
TLV? Then we don't need three calls but just two.
thanks,
Takashi
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
