Hi Niklas,
On Friday, 8 December 2017 16:06:58 EET Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> On 2017-12-08 11:35:18 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Friday, 8 December 2017 03:08:27 EET Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> >> There was never proper support in the VIN driver to deliver ALTERNATING
> >> field format to user-space, remove this field option. For sources using
> >> this field format instead use the VIN hardware feature of combining the
> >> fields to an interlaced format. This mode of operation was previously
> >> the default behavior and ALTERNATING was only delivered to user-space if
> >> explicitly requested. Allowing this to be explicitly requested was a
> >> mistake and was never properly tested and never worked due to the
> >> constraints put on the field format when it comes to sequence numbers
> >> and timestamps etc.
> >
> > I'm puzzled, why can't we support V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE if we can support
> > V4L2_FIELD_TOP and V4L2_FIELD_BOTTOM ? I don't dispute the fact that the
> > currently implemented logic might be wrong (although I haven't
> > double-checked that), but what prevents us from implementing it correctly
> > ?
>
> Maybe my commit message is fuzzy. We can support V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE as
> a source to the VIN but we can't (yet) support delivering it to
> user-space in a good way. So if we have a video source which outputs
> V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE we are fine as we can use the hardware to interlace
> that or only capture the TOP or BOTTOM fields.
>
> But the driver logic to capture frames (the whole dance with single and
> continues capture modes) to be able to deal with situations where
> buffers are not queued fast enough currently prevents us from delivering
> V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE to user-space. The problem is we can only capture
> (correctly) ALTERNATE if we run in continues mode, if the driver is feed
> buffers to slow and switches to single capture mode we can't live up to
> the specification of the field order from the documentation:
>
> "If fields are successive, without any dropped fields between them
> (fields can drop individually), can be determined from the struct
> v4l2_buffer sequence field."
>
> So even if in single capture mode we switch between TOP and BOTTOM for
> each capture the sequence number would always be sequential but the
> fields would in temporal time potentially be far apparat (depending on
> how fast user-space queues buffers + the time it takes to shutdown and
> startup the VIN capture).
>
> So instead of badly supporting this field order now I feel it's better
> to not support it and once we tackle the issue of trying to remove
> single capture mode (if at all possible) add support for it. But this is
> a task for a different patch-set as this one is quiet large already and
> it's focus is to add Gen3 support.
OK, so we could support capturing alternating fields, but in that case we
wouldn't be able to provide accurate sequence numbers. I'm fine with dropping
support for ALTERNATE, but I would capture that information in the commit
message, and probably as well in a comment in the code.
> >> The height should not be cut in half for the format for TOP or BOTTOM
> >> fields settings. This was a mistake and it was made visible by the
> >> scaling refactoring. Correct behavior is that the user should request a
> >> frame size that fits the half height frame reflected in the field
> >> setting. If not the VIN will do its best to scale the top or bottom to
> >> the requested format and cropping and scaling do not work as expected.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-dma.c | 15 +--------
> >> drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-v4l2.c | 48 +++++++++--------------
> >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
[snip]
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-v4l2.c
> >> b/drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-v4l2.c index
> >> 9cf9ff48ac1e2f4f..37fe1f6c646b0ea3 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-v4l2.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-v4l2.c
> >> @@ -102,6 +102,24 @@ static int rvin_get_sd_format(struct rvin_dev *vin,
> >> struct v4l2_pix_format *pix)
> >> if (ret)
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> + switch (fmt.format.field) {
> >> + case V4L2_FIELD_TOP:
> >> + case V4L2_FIELD_BOTTOM:
> >> + case V4L2_FIELD_NONE:
> >> + case V4L2_FIELD_INTERLACED_TB:
> >> + case V4L2_FIELD_INTERLACED_BT:
> >> + case V4L2_FIELD_INTERLACED:
> >> + break;
> >> + case V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE:
> >> + /* Use VIN hardware to combine the two fields */
> >> + fmt.format.field = V4L2_FIELD_INTERLACED;
> >> + fmt.format.height *= 2;
> >> + break;
> >
> > I don't think this is right. If V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE isn't supported it
> > should be rejected in the set format handler, or rather this logic should
> > be moved there. It doesn't belong here, rvin_get_sd_format() should only
> > be called with a validated and supported field.
>
> I might misunderstand you here, fmt.format.field comes from a the
> subdevice, just above this:
>
> struct v4l2_subdev_format fmt = {
> .which = V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_ACTIVE,
> .pad = vin->digital->source_pad,
> };
> int ret;
>
> ret = v4l2_subdev_call(vin_to_source(vin), pad, get_fmt, NULL, &fmt);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> switch (fmt.format.field) {
> ...
> }
>
> So the format acted on here is the one from the subdevice, and if it is
> V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE it is supported as a source format, just not for
> output to user-space.
>
> > Furthermore treating the pix parameter of this function as both input and
> > output seems very confusing to me. If you want to extend
> > rvin_get_sd_format() beyond just getting the format from the subdev then
> > please document the function with kerneldoc, and let's try to make its
> > API clear.
>
> This comment confuses me, are we looking at the same change? The only
> reference I have to the pix parameter in rvin_get_sd_format() is just
> before the function returns and it's:
>
> v4l2_fill_pix_format(pix, &fmt.format);
>
> So it's only used as an output for this function.
I had mistakenly read the switch statement as operating on the pix function
parameter. My bad, sorry about the noise.
However, V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE should still be rejected in the set format
handler, and I don't think you do so in this patch.
It looks like the field handling logic needs a rewrite :-)
> >> + default:
> >> + vin->format.field = V4L2_FIELD_NONE;
> >> + break;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> v4l2_fill_pix_format(pix, &fmt.format);
> >>
> >> return 0;
[snip]
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
