On 16/10/2023 15:35, Sebastian Fricke wrote:
> Hey Hans,
>
> On 16.10.2023 13:57, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> Hi Sebastian,
>>
>> On 12/10/2023 13:01, Sebastian Fricke wrote:
>>> Add the decoder and encoder implementing the v4l2
>>> API. This patch also adds the Makefile and the VIDEO_WAVE_VPU config
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Fricke <sebastian.fricke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas.dufresne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Deborah Brouwer <deborah.brouwer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Beckett <bob.beckett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dafna Hirschfeld <dafna.hirschfeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nas Chung <nas.chung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/media/platform/chips-media/Kconfig | 1 +
>>> drivers/media/platform/chips-media/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/media/platform/chips-media/wave5/Kconfig | 12 +
>>> drivers/media/platform/chips-media/wave5/Makefile | 10 +
>>> .../platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-helper.c | 213 +++
>>> .../platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-helper.h | 31 +
>>> .../platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu-dec.c | 1953 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>> .../platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu-enc.c | 1794 ++++++++++++++++++
>>> .../media/platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu.c | 291 +++
>>> .../media/platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu.h | 83 +
>>> .../platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpuapi.h | 2 -
>>> 11 files changed, 4389 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> +static int wave5_vpu_dec_create_bufs(struct file *file, void *priv,
>>> + struct v4l2_create_buffers *create)
>>> +{
>>> + struct vpu_instance *inst = wave5_to_vpu_inst(priv);
>>> + struct v4l2_format *f = &create->format;
>>> +
>>> + /* Firmware does not support CREATE_BUFS for CAPTURE queues. */
>>> + if (f->type == V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE_MPLANE) {
>>> + dev_dbg(inst->dev->dev,
>>> + "%s: VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS not supported on CAPTURE queues.\n",
>>> + __func__);
>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return v4l2_m2m_ioctl_create_bufs(file, priv, create);
>>> +}
>>
>> Regarding the EOPNOTSUPP discussion: I discussed this some more with
>> Nicolas on irc, and we wonder if it isn't better to just drop create_bufs
>> support for the wave5 decoder altogether. Is there any point in supporting
>> it for OUTPUT but not CAPTURE?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> +static const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops wave5_vpu_dec_ioctl_ops = {
>>> + .vidioc_querycap = wave5_vpu_dec_querycap,
>>> + .vidioc_enum_framesizes = wave5_vpu_dec_enum_framesizes,
>>> +
>>> + .vidioc_enum_fmt_vid_cap = wave5_vpu_dec_enum_fmt_cap,
>>> + .vidioc_s_fmt_vid_cap_mplane = wave5_vpu_dec_s_fmt_cap,
>>> + .vidioc_g_fmt_vid_cap_mplane = wave5_vpu_dec_g_fmt_cap,
>>> + .vidioc_try_fmt_vid_cap_mplane = wave5_vpu_dec_try_fmt_cap,
>>> +
>>> + .vidioc_enum_fmt_vid_out = wave5_vpu_dec_enum_fmt_out,
>>> + .vidioc_s_fmt_vid_out_mplane = wave5_vpu_dec_s_fmt_out,
>>> + .vidioc_g_fmt_vid_out_mplane = wave5_vpu_g_fmt_out,
>>> + .vidioc_try_fmt_vid_out_mplane = wave5_vpu_dec_try_fmt_out,
>>> +
>>> + .vidioc_g_selection = wave5_vpu_dec_g_selection,
>>> + .vidioc_s_selection = wave5_vpu_dec_s_selection,
>>> +
>>> + .vidioc_reqbufs = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_reqbufs,
>>> + .vidioc_querybuf = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_querybuf,
>>> + .vidioc_create_bufs = wave5_vpu_dec_create_bufs,
>>
>> So this would just be dropped.
>>
>>> + .vidioc_prepare_buf = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_prepare_buf,
>>> + .vidioc_qbuf = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_qbuf,
>>> + .vidioc_expbuf = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_expbuf,
>>> + .vidioc_dqbuf = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_dqbuf,
>>> + .vidioc_streamon = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_streamon,
>>> + .vidioc_streamoff = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_streamoff,
>>> +
>>> + .vidioc_try_decoder_cmd = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_try_decoder_cmd,
>>> + .vidioc_decoder_cmd = wave5_vpu_dec_decoder_cmd,
>>> +
>>> + .vidioc_subscribe_event = wave5_vpu_subscribe_event,
>>> + .vidioc_unsubscribe_event = v4l2_event_unsubscribe,
>>> +};
>>
>> This also means there is no need to document the new EOPNOTSUPP error
>> code in VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS, or to modify v4l2-compliance.
>>
>> You *do* need to add a comment somewhere explaining why you don't
>> support this ioctl. I think it would be best to do that right after
>> '.vidioc_reqbufs = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_reqbufs,'.
>
> So, besides this issue would you judge the v4l2 layer of the driver to
> be ready? Do you want a reviewed by tag for it or would you take it like
> this as well?
No, it looks good. Please note though that patch 6/8 (dt-bindings) still
needs an Acked/Reviewed-by from the device tree maintainers.
There was a comment on it from Krzysztof.
Regards,
Hans
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>
> Sincerly,
> Sebastian
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
