Hello
On 11/10/2016 10:08 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Antti, Hans, ping ? Please see below.
On Friday 04 Nov 2016 09:23:29 Ramesh Shanmugasundaram wrote:
On 11/02/2016 10:58 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Wednesday 02 Nov 2016 09:00:00 Ramesh Shanmugasundaram wrote:
On Wednesday 12 Oct 2016 15:10:29 Ramesh Shanmugasundaram wrote:
This patch adds documentation for the three new SDR formats
V4L2_SDR_FMT_SCU16BE
V4L2_SDR_FMT_SCU18BE
V4L2_SDR_FMT_SCU20BE
[snip]
+
+ - start + 0:
+
+ - I'\ :sub:`0[D13:D6]`
+
+ - I'\ :sub:`0[D5:D0]`
+
+ - .. row 2
+
+ - start + buffer_size/2:
+
+ - Q'\ :sub:`0[D13:D6]`
+
+ - Q'\ :sub:`0[D5:D0]`
The format looks planar, does it use one V4L2 plane (as does NV12)
or two V4L2 planes (as does NV12M) ? Same question for the other
formats.
Thank you for bringing up this topic. This is one of the key design
dilemma.
The I & Q data for these three SDR formats comes from two different
DMA channels and hence two separate pointers -> we could say it is
v4l2 multi- planar. Right now, I am making it look like a single
plane by presenting the data in one single buffer ptr.
For e.g. multi-planar SC16 format would look something like this
<------------------------32bits---------------------->
<--I(14 bit data) + 2bit status--16bit padded zeros--> : start0 + 0
<--I(14 bit data) + 2bit status--16bit padded zeros--> : start0 + 4
...
<--Q(14 bit data) + 2bit status--16bit padded zeros--> : start1 + 0
<--Q(14 bit data) + 2bit status--16bit padded zeros--> : start1 + 4
My concerns are
1) These formats are not a standard as the video "Image Formats".
These formats are possible when we use DRIF + MAX2175 combination.
If we interface with a different tuner vendor, the above format(s)
MAY/MAY NOT be re-usable. We do not know at this point. This is the
main open item for discussion in the cover letter.
If the formats are really device-specific then they should be
documented accordingly and not made generic.
2) MPLANE support within V4L2 seems specific to video. Please
correct me if this is wrong interpretation.
- struct v4l2_format contains v4l2_sdr_format and
v4l2_pix_format_mplane as members of union. Should I create a new
v4l2_sdr_format_mplane? If I have to use v4l2_pix_format_mplane most
of the video specific members would be unused (it would be similar
to using v4l2_pix_format itself instead of v4l2_sdr_format)?
I have no answer to that question as I'm not familiar with SDR. Antti,
you've added v4l2_sdr_format to the API, what's your opinion ? Hans,
as you've acked the patch, your input would be appreciated as well.
If I understood correctly this hardware provides I and Q samples via
different channels and driver now combines those channels as a sequential
IQ sample pairs.
The driver combines the two buffer ptrs and present as one single buffer.
For a buffer of size 200
ptr + 0 : I I I I ... I
ptr + 100 : Q Q Q Q ... Q
I have never seen any other than hw which provides IQ IQ IQ IQ ... IQ.
There are some modes where this h/w combo can also do IQ IQ IQ pattern.
Those modes are not added in the RFC patchset.
This is
I I I I ... I
Q Q Q Q ... Q
I am not very familiar with planars, but it sounds like it is correct
approach. So I think should be added rather than emulate packet
sequential format.
My understanding of V4L2 MPLANE constructs is limited to a quick code read
only. At this point MPLANE support seems specific to video. SDR is defined
as separate format like v4l2_pix_format. Questions would be - should we
define new SDR_MPLANE? or merge SDR format with pix format & reuse existing
MPLANE with some SDR extensions (if possible)? These seem big design
decisions. Any suggestions please?
struct v4l2_format contains union that has own format definition for
video, video mplane and sdr (+many others). Basically on api there is
own definitions for each type, so I think possible sdr mplane should be
similarly own types and definitions.
For my use case, MPLANE support does not seem to add significant benefit
except it may be syntactically correct. I am doing cyclic DMA with a small
set of h/w buffers and copying each stage to one mmapped vmalloc vb2_buffer
at two offsets. If we add MPLANE support, it can be two non-contiguous
buffer pointers.
If there is no clear idea about need of mplane then that's also fine for me.
And whole mplane concept is new for me. I have never played with any
v4l2 video formats nor mplane video formats.
I would still like to hear what Hans think about adding mplane.
- The above decision (accomodate SDR & MPLANE) needs to be
propagated across the framework. Is this the preferred approach?
It goes back to point (1). As of today, the change set for this
combo (DRIF+MAX2175) introduces new SDR formats only. Should it add
further SDR+MPLANE support to the framework as well?
I would appreciate your suggestions on this regard.
regards
Antti
--
http://palosaari.fi/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
