Hi, On Mon, 2018-08-06 at 10:32 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 08/06/2018 10:16 AM, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > On Sat, 2018-08-04 at 15:50 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > Regarding point 3: I think this should be documented next to the pixel format. I.e. > > > the MPEG-2 Slice format used by the stateless cedrus codec requires the request API > > > and that two MPEG-2 controls (slice params and quantization matrices) must be present > > > in each request. > > > > > > I am not sure a control flag (e.g. V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_REQUIRED_IN_REQ) is needed here. > > > It's really implied by the fact that you use a stateless codec. It doesn't help > > > generic applications like v4l2-ctl or qv4l2 either since in order to support > > > stateless codecs they will have to know about the details of these controls anyway. > > > > > > So I am inclined to say that it is not necessary to expose this information in > > > the API, but it has to be documented together with the pixel format documentation. > > > > I think this is affected by considerations about codec profile/level > > support. More specifically, some controls will only be required for > > supporting advanced codec profiles/levels, so they can only be > > explicitly marked with appropriate flags by the driver when the target > > profile/level is known. And I don't think it would be sane for userspace > > to explicitly set what profile/level it's aiming at. As a result, I > > don't think we can explicitly mark controls as required or optional. > > > > I also like the idea that it should instead be implicit and that the > > documentation should detail which specific stateless metadata controls > > are required for a given profile/level. > > > > As for controls validation, the approach followed in the Cedrus driver > > is to check that the most basic controls are filled and allow having > > missing controls for those that match advanced profiles. > > > > Since this approach feels somewhat generic enough to be applied to all > > stateless VPU drivers, maybe this should be made a helper in the > > framework? > > Sounds reasonable. Not sure if it will be in the first version, but it is > easy to add later. Definitely, I don't think this is such a high priority for now either. > > In addition, I see a need for exposing the maximum profile/level that > > the driver supports for decoding. I would suggest reusing the already- > > existing dedicated controls used for encoding for this purpose. For > > decoders, they would be used to expose the (read-only) maximum > > profile/level that is supported by the hardware and keep using them as a > > settable value in a range (matching the level of support) for encoders. > > > > This is necessary for userspace to determine whether a given video can > > be decoded in hardware or not. Instead of half-way decoding the video > > (ending up in funky results), this would easily allow skipping hardware > > decoding and e.g. falling back on software decoding. > > I think it might be better to expose this through new read-only bitmask > controls: i.e. a bitmask containing the supported profiles and levels. It seems that this is more or less what the coda driver is doing for decoding actually, although it uses a menu control between min/max supported profile/levels, with a mask to "blacklist" the unsupported values. Then, the V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_READ_ONLY flag is set to keep the control read-only. > Reusing the existing controls for a decoder is odd since there is not > really a concept of a 'current' value since you just want to report what > is supported. And I am not sure if all decoders can report the profile > or level that they detect. Is that really a problem when the READ_ONLY flag is set? I thought it was designed to fit this specific case, when the driver reports a value that userspace cannot affect. Otherwise, I agree that having a bitmask type would be a better fit, but I think it would be beneficial to keep the already-defined control and associated values, which implies using the menu control type for both encoders and decoders. If this is not an option, I would be in favour of adding per-codec read- only bitmask controls (e.g. for H264 something like V4L2_CID_MPEG_VIDEO_H264_PROFILE_SUPPORT) that expose the already- existing profile/level definitions as bit identifiers (a bit like coda is using them to craft a mask for the menu items to blacklist) for decoding only. What do you think? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
