On Mon, 2018-08-06 at 11:23 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 08/06/2018 11:13 AM, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > 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. > > Well, for read-only menu controls the current value of the control would > have to indicate what the current profile/level is that is being decoded. > > That's not really relevant since what you want is just to query the > supported profiles/levels. A read-only bitmask control is the fastest > method (if only because using a menu control requires the application to > enumerate all possibilities with QUERYMENU). Ah yes, I finally understand the issue with what the current control value represents here. Since I don't think the driver should have to bother with figuring out the profile in use (as expressed earlier, I think it should be implicit, through the codec metadata controls and features used), I no longer believe it's best to have the same control for both encoding and decoding. > > 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. > > That's what I have in mind, yes. I'd like Tomasz' input as well, though. Okay, so this sounds good to me at this point! 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
