Hi,
On Sat 27 Jul 19, 15:49, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 09:52:24 -0300
> Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > > >
> > > > That's not my understanding of the Annex B section (quoting the spec
> > > > for reference):
> > > >
> > > > "
> > > > The byte stream format consists of a sequence of byte stream NAL unit
> > > > syntax structures. Each byte stream NAL unit syntax structure contains
> > > > one start code prefix followed by one nal_unit( NumBytesInNALunit )
> > > > syntax structure. It may (and under some circumstances, it shall) also
> > > > contain an additional zero_byte syntax element. It may also contain one
> > > > or more additional trailing_zero_8bits syntax elements. When it is the
> > > > first byte stream NAL unit in the bitstream, it may also contain one or
> > > > more additional leading_zero_8bits syntax elements.
> > > > "
> > > >
> >
> > Right. I wonder what the "may or shall" part is really specifying.
> >
> > However, note that the table B.1.1 and its comments B.1.2 is might
> > be interpreted differently. To me, there's a difference between the different
> > syntax elements (zero-bytes elements vs. the start code prefix element).
> >
> > This is what it says about the zero_byte syntax element:
> >
> > """
> > zero_byte is a single byte equal to 0x00.
> > When any of the following conditions are fulfilled, the zero_byte syntax element shall be present.
> > – the nal_unit_type within the nal_unit( ) is equal to 7 (sequence parameter set) or 8 (picture parameter set)
> > – the byte stream NAL unit syntax structure contains the first NAL unit of an access unit in decoding order, as
> > specified by subclause 7.4.1.2.3.
> > """
> >
> > We are not dealing with SPS or PPS here, but we are discussing multislice content,
> > so IIUC this syntax element would be part of our bitstream pixfmt.
> >
> > And this is what it says about the start code prefix:
> >
> > """
> > start_code_prefix_one_3bytes is a fixed-value sequence of 3 bytes equal to 0x000001. This syntax element is called a
> > start code prefix.
> > """
> >
> > These elements are used in such a way that it might seem
> > you have two start codes options 3-byte or 4-byte, though.
>
> This is correct, but I was actually referring to:
>
> "
> It may also contain one or more additional trailing_zero_8bits syntax
> elements. When it is the first byte stream NAL unit in the
> bitstream, it may also contain one or more additional
> leading_zero_8bits syntax elements.
> "
>
> which would allow userspace to put additional zeros at the beginning
> in order to fulfill the HW alignment constraints. I'm not saying this is
> a good solution, just saying it can be done.
>
>
> > > > > > I guess it's not such a high price to pay for a unified codec interface :)
> > > >
> > > > If by unified you mean exposing only one pixel format, then yes, it's
> > > > unified. Doesn't make it easier to deal with from the userspace
> > > > perspective IMHO.
> > > >
> > > > To sum-up, I'm fine keeping one pixel format, but I'm no longer sure
> > > > not exposing the NAL header type is a good option. We've seen that
> > > > providing alignment guarantees for HW expecting raw bitstream (without
> > > > the start code) might become challenging at some point. So I'd opt for
> > > > making this selection explicit. After all, it's just an extra control
> > > > to set from userspace, and 2 extra switch-case: one to select the most
> > > > appropriate NAL header type, and another one to fill the buffer with
> > > > the appropriate header (if there's one).
> >
> > I must admit I'm confused by what you mean about NAL header type, I thought
> > we weren't trying to support AVC, and only the Annex B bitstream format.
>
> I'm not trying to support AVC headers, but designing something that
> allows us to extend the interface and support that case (if we ever need
> to) is a good thing IMO.
>
> >
> > That said, I don't see the interface getting any simpler with a unified
> > pixfmt, given the menu control to expose frame or slice decoding.
>
> I agree. I think it's pretty much the same complexity anyway
> ('additional ctrl to set the start-code/header/preamble type' vs
> 'additional pixfmt'), so it's mostly a matter of taste.
The reason why I am strongly in favor of a single format is that the combinatory
possibilities of all the little things that can be different would eventually
lead us to having one pixel format per hardware implementation and I believe it
makes no sense. I really don't find it to be an elegant or scalable way to
expose the differences between decoder implementations.
So the approach I currently like best is to have as much information as possible
passed to the driver, both as offsets to each relevant part of the data in codec
controls and through specific controls (or maybe pixfmt flags could be relevant
in some cases) that reflect hardware-specific constraints.
Apparently this is also the approach on stateful codecs (e.g. the patch exposing
whether boundaries can be detected by the hardware or not, without adding a new
pixfmt for each case).
> >
> > Proper applications need to support both modes anyway, where in the latter
> > it'll have to parse the bitstream to extract the slices.
>
> Hm, the current uAPI forces us to pass slice offsets, which means we
> have to parse the bitstream anyway. I think we should keep it like that
> because I don't think we can assume the HW is smart enough to detect
> slice boundaries.
Agreed.
Cheers,
Paul
> > What's so bad
> > about just supporting an extra pixel format, where the slices are stripped
> > of its start codes and zero-byte elements?
>
> I'm not opposed to that solution, but Paul is, so I'm just trying to
> find something that makes everyone happy, hence the "NAL header
> type" (or "start code type"/"preamble type" if you prefer, though
> it's not really a start code for AVC) proposal.
>
> >
> > And how come this is any more complex than exposing alignment constraints,
> > so that applications can artificially add leading_zero_8bits or trailing_zero_8bits
> > elements to comply with a driver dma alignment. To be honest, the more I think
> > about it, the more this option sounds just horrible :-)
>
> Also think this option is more complicated and less future proof
> (AFAICT, AVC headers/start-codes can't be extended like Annex B ones).
>
> >
> > To me, it's far simpler to just expose what the devices support. If a driver
> > will expect to parse the bitstream, and accepts multi-slice content,
> > we expose that as a bitstream pixfmt.
>
> Those 2 problems are orthogonal. You could have HW dealing with
> multi-slice content while still requiring things to be passed without
> Annex B start codes. The H264 pixfmt is really just about NAL headers:
> No NAL headers vs Annex B headers vs AVC headers.
>
> > And if another driver expects
> > no-start-code slices, then we have another pixfmt.
>
> Yep, but I don't want to argue endlessly on this, and I'd be fine with
> the "NAL header/preamble/start-code/whatever type ctrl" too.
--
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
