Hi Tomasz,
On Wednesday 01 August 2012 10:01:45 Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 02:11 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On Tue 31 July 2012 13:56:14 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 31 July 2012 08:33:56 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> >>> On Thu June 14 2012 16:32:23 Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
> >>>> +/**
> >>>> + * struct v4l2_exportbuffer - export of video buffer as DMABUF file
> >>>> descriptor + *
> >>>> + * @fd: file descriptor associated with DMABUF (set by driver)
> >>>> + * @mem_offset: buffer memory offset as returned by VIDIOC_QUERYBUF
in
> >>>> struct + * v4l2_buffer::m.offset (for single-plane formats) or
> >>>> + * v4l2_plane::m.offset (for multi-planar formats)
> >>>> + * @flags: flags for newly created file, currently only O_CLOEXEC is
> >>>> + * supported, refer to manual of open syscall for more details
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * Contains data used for exporting a video buffer as DMABUF file
> >>>> descriptor. + * The buffer is identified by a 'cookie' returned by
> >>>> VIDIOC_QUERYBUF + * (identical to the cookie used to mmap() the buffer
> >>>> to
> >>>> userspace). All + * reserved fields must be set to zero. The field
> >>>> reserved0 is expected to + * become a structure 'type' allowing an
> >>>> alternative layout of the structure + * content. Therefore this field
> >>>> should not be used for any other extensions. + */
> >>>> +struct v4l2_exportbuffer {
> >>>> + __u32 fd;
> >>>> + __u32 reserved0;
> >>>> + __u32 mem_offset;
> >>>
> >>> This should be a union identical to the m union in v4l2_plane, together
> >>> with a u32 memory field. That way you can just copy memory and m from
> >>> v4l2_plane/buffer and call expbuf. If new memory types are added in the
> >>> future, then you don't need to change this struct.
> >>
> >> OK, reserved0 could be replace by __u32 memory. Could we have other
> >> dma-buf
> >> export types in the future not corresponding to a memory type ? I don't
> >> see
> >> any use case right now though.
> >
> > The memory type should be all you need. And the union is also needed since
> > the userptr value is unsigned long, thus ensuring that you have 64-bits
> > available for pointer types in the future. That's really my main point:
> > the union should have the same size as the union in v4l2_buffer/plane,
> > allowing for the same size pointers or whatever to be added in the
> > future.
>
> I do not see any good point in using v4l2_plane. What would be the meaning
> of bytesused, length, data_offset in case of DMABUF exporting?
I don't think Hans meant using v4l2_plane directly, but to use the same union
as in v4l2_plane.
> The field reserved0 was introduced to be replaced by __u32 memory if other
> means of buffer description would be needed. The reserved fields at the end
> of the structure could be used for auxiliary parameters other then offset
> and flags. The flags field is expected to be used by all exporting types
> therefore the layout could be reorganized to:
>
> struct v4l2_exportbuffers {
> __u32 fd;
> __u32 flags;
> __u32 reserved0[2]; /* place for '__u32 memory' + forcing 64 bit
alignment
> */ __u32 mem_offset; /* what do you thing about using 64-bit field? */
> __u32 reserved1[11];
> };
>
> What is your opinion about this idea?
>
> >>> For that matter, wouldn't it be useful to support exporting a userptr
> >>> buffer at some point in the future?
> >>
> >> Shouldn't USERPTR usage be discouraged once we get dma-buf support ?
> >
> > Why? It's perfectly fine to use it and it's not going away.
> >
> > I'm not saying that we should support exporting a userptr buffer as a
> > dmabuf fd, but I'm just wondering if that is possible at all and how
> > difficult it would be.
> It would be difficult. Currently there is no safe/portable way to transform
> a userptr into a scatterlist mappable for other devices. The most trouble
> some examples are userspace-mapping of IO memory like framebuffers.
> How reference management is going to work if there are no struct pages
> describing mapped memory?
>
> The VB2 uses a workaround by keeping a copy of vma that is used to call
> open/close callbacks. I am not sure how reliable this solution is.
>
> Who knows, maybe in future someone will introduce a mechanism for creation
> of DMABUF descriptor from a userptr without any help of client APIs.
> In such a case, it will be the part of DMABUF api not V4L2 :).
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
