Em Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:30:37 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> Em Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:15:03 -0300
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> > Em Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:56:30 +0200
> > Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >
> > > On 25/08/17 12:50, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > > Em Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:42:51 +0200
> > > > Hans Verkuil <hansverk@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> > > >
> > > >> On 08/25/2017 12:35 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > >>> Em Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:13:53 +0200
> > > >>> Hans Verkuil <hansverk@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On 08/25/2017 12:06 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > >>>>> Em Fri, 25 Aug 2017 11:44:27 +0200
> > > >>>>> Hans Verkuil <hansverk@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 08/25/2017 11:40 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> As both vdev-centric and mc-centric devices may implement the
> > > >>>>>>> same APIs, we need a flag to allow userspace to distinguish
> > > >>>>>>> between them.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>>>>>> ---
> > > >>>>>>> Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst | 6 ++++++
> > > >>>>>>> Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-querycap.rst | 4 ++++
> > > >>>>>>> include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h | 2 ++
> > > >>>>>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst
> > > >>>>>>> index a72d142897c0..eb3f0ec57edb 100644
> > > >>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst
> > > >>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst
> > > >>>>>>> @@ -33,6 +33,12 @@ For **vdev-centric** control, the device and their corresponding hardware
> > > >>>>>>> pipelines are controlled via the **V4L2 device** node. They may optionally
> > > >>>>>>> expose via the :ref:`media controller API <media_controller>`.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> +.. note::
> > > >>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>> + **vdev-centric** devices should report V4L2_VDEV_CENTERED
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> You mean CENTRIC, not CENTERED.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Yeah, true. I'll fix it.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But I would change this to MC_CENTRIC: the vast majority of drivers are VDEV centric,
> > > >>>>>> so it makes a lot more sense to keep that as the default and only set the cap for
> > > >>>>>> MC-centric drivers.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I actually focused it on what an userspace application would do.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> An specialized application for a given hardware will likely just
> > > >>>>> ignore whatever flag is added, and use vdev, mc and subdev APIs
> > > >>>>> as it pleases. So, those applications don't need any flag at all.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> However, a generic application needs a flag to allow them to check
> > > >>>>> if a given hardware can be controlled by the traditional way
> > > >>>>> to control the device (e. g. if it accepts vdev-centric type of
> > > >>>>> hardware control).
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> It is an old desire (since when MC was designed) to allow that
> > > >>>>> generic V4L2 apps to also work with MC-centric hardware somehow.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> No, not true. The desire is that they can use the MC to find the
> > > >>>> various device nodes (video, radio, vbi, rc, cec, ...). But they
> > > >>>> remain vdev-centric. vdev vs mc centric has nothing to do with the
> > > >>>> presence of the MC. It's how they are controlled.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> No, that's not I'm talking about. I'm talking about libv4l plugin
> > > >>> (or whatever) that would allow a generic app to work with a mc-centric
> > > >>> device. That's there for a long time (since when we were reviewing
> > > >>> the MC patches back in 2009 or 2010).
> > > >>
> > > >> So? Such a plugin would obviously remove the MC_CENTRIC cap. Which makes
> > > >> perfect sense.
> > > >>
> > > >> There are a lot of userspace applications that do not use libv4l. It's
> > > >> optional, not required, to use that library. We cannot design our API with
> > > >> the assumption that this library will be used.
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Regarding userspace applications: they can't check for a VDEV_CENTRIC
> > > >>>> cap since we never had any. I.e., if they do:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> if (!(caps & VDEV_CENTRIC))
> > > >>>> /* unsupported device */
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> then they would fail for older kernels that do not set this flag.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> But this works:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> if (caps & MC_CENTRIC)
> > > >>>> /* unsupported device */
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So this really needs to be an MC_CENTRIC capability.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That won't work. The test should take into account the API version
> > > >>> too.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Assuming that such flag would be added for version 4.15, with a VDEV_CENTRIC,
> > > >>> the check would be:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> /*
> > > >>> * There's no need to check version here: libv4l may override it
> > > >>> * to support a mc-centric device even for older versions of the
> > > >>> * Kernel
> > > >>> */
> > > >>> if (caps & V4L2_CAP_VDEV_CENTRIC)
> > > >>> is_supported = true;
> > > >>>
> > > >>> /*
> > > >>> * For API version lower than 4.15, there's no way to know for
> > > >>> * sure if the device is vdev-centric or not. So, either additional
> > > >>> * tests are needed, or it would assume vdev-centric and output
> > > >>> * some note about that.
> > > >>> */
> > > >>> if (version < KERNEL_VERSION(4, 15, 0))
> > > >>> maybe_supported = true;
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> is_supported = true;
> > > >> if (caps & V4L2_CAP_MC_CENTRIC)
> > > >> is_supported = false;
> > > >> if (version < KERNEL_VERSION(4, 15, 0))
> > > >> maybe_supported = true;
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't see the difference. BTW, no application will ever do that version check.
> > > >> It doesn't help them in any way to know that it 'may' be supported.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, this can work. The only drawback is that, if we end by
> > > > implementing vdev compatible support is that such drivers will
> > > > have to clean the V4L2_CAP_MC_CENTRIC flag.
> > >
> > > You mean implementing vdev compatible support in libv4l? (Just making sure
> > > I understand you correctly)
> >
> > Yes, either there or at the Kernel, as it seems we'll never have it
> > there, as nobody is working on it anymore.
> >
> > > In that case it doesn't matter if the libv4l code would set the VDEV_CENTRIC flag
> > > or remove the MC_CENTRIC flag. That makes no difference, or course.
> >
> > True, but the text will have to be clear that a MC_CENTRIC device is a
> > device that can't be controlled by a V4L2-centric application.
>
> Ok, that's the "reverse" patch. IMHO, it is very confusing, as we're
> actually using MC_CENTRIC to actually describe the lack of a capability.
>
> Perhaps we should name it as NOT_VDEV_CENTRIC instead.
Hans suggested an alternative word at the IRC ("require"), with actually
sounds better. Patch follows.
I can live it that :-)
Regards,
Mauro
-
media: videodev2: add a flag for vdev-centric devices
As both vdev-centric and mc-centric devices may implement the
same APIs, we need a flag to allow userspace to distinguish
between them.
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst
index a72d142897c0..4b344dccd2ac 100644
--- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst
+++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
Opening and Closing Devices
***************************
+.. _v4l2_hardware_control:
+
Types of V4L2 hardware control
==============================
@@ -33,6 +35,13 @@ For **vdev-centric** control, the device and their corresponding hardware
pipelines are controlled via the **V4L2 device** node. They may optionally
expose via the :ref:`media controller API <media_controller>`.
+.. note::
+
+ Devices that require **mc-centric** hardware control should report
+ a ``V4L2_MC_CENTRIC`` :c:type:`v4l2_capability` flag
+ (see :ref:`VIDIOC_QUERYCAP`).
+
+
For **MC-centric** control, before using the V4L2 device, it is required to
set the hardware pipelines via the
:ref:`media controller API <media_controller>`. For those devices, the
diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-querycap.rst b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-querycap.rst
index 12e0d9a63cd8..2b08723375bc 100644
--- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-querycap.rst
+++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-querycap.rst
@@ -252,6 +252,11 @@ specification the ioctl returns an ``EINVAL`` error code.
* - ``V4L2_CAP_TOUCH``
- 0x10000000
- This is a touch device.
+ * - ``V4L2_MC_CENTRIC``
+ - 0x20000000
+ - Indicates that the device require **mc-centric** hardware
+ control, and thus can't be used by **v4l2-centric** applications.
+ See :ref:`v4l2_hardware_control` for more details.
* - ``V4L2_CAP_DEVICE_CAPS``
- 0x80000000
- The driver fills the ``device_caps`` field. This capability can
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h b/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
index 45cf7359822c..7b490fe97980 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
@@ -460,6 +460,8 @@ struct v4l2_capability {
#define V4L2_CAP_TOUCH 0x10000000 /* Is a touch device */
+#define V4L2_CAP_MC_CENTRIC 0x20000000 /* Device require mc-centric hardware control */
+
#define V4L2_CAP_DEVICE_CAPS 0x80000000 /* sets device capabilities field */
/*
--
Thanks,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
