On 29/04/2020 22:08, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Laurent, Mauro,
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:50:33PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hi Mauro,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:01:40PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> Em Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:38:49 +0300 Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 06:27:39PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>>> Em Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:43:31 +0300 Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The VIDIOC_ENUM_FMT ioctl enumerates all formats supported by a video
>>>>>> node. For MC-centric devices, its behaviour has always been ill-defined,
>>>>>> with drivers implementing one of the following behaviours:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The patch itself is OK. However, there's a change you did at the
>>>>> documentation that it is unrelated.
>>>>>
>>>>> See below.
>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-enum-fmt.rst b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-enum-fmt.rst
>>>>>> index 8ca6ab701e4a..a987debc7654 100644
>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-enum-fmt.rst
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-enum-fmt.rst
>>>>>> @@ -48,10 +48,21 @@ one until ``EINVAL`` is returned. If applicable, drivers shall return
>>>>>> formats in preference order, where preferred formats are returned before
>>>>>> (that is, with lower ``index`` value) less-preferred formats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -.. note::
>>>>>> - After switching input or output the list of enumerated image
>>>>>> - formats may be different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you dropping this note?
>>>>>
>>>>> This basically reverts this changeset:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 93828d6438081649e81b8681df9bf6ad5d691650
>>>>> Author: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Date: Mon Sep 3 09:37:18 2012 -0300
>>>>>
>>>>> [media] DocBook: make the G/S/TRY_FMT specification more strict
>>>>>
>>>>> - S/TRY_FMT should always succeed, unless an invalid type field is passed in.
>>>>> - TRY_FMT should give the same result as S_FMT, all other things being equal.
>>>>> - ENUMFMT may return different formats for different inputs or outputs.
>>>>> This was decided during the 2012 Media Workshop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Acked-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I remember, from our 2012 discussions, some drivers may change
>>>>> the enumerated image formats when some ioctls like VIDIOC_S_INPUT and
>>>>> VIDIOC_S_OUTPUT ioctls are used. I also vaguely remember that 90 and 270
>>>>> degrees rotation would equally affect it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, the removal was just some mistake. If so, please re-submit
>>>>> another patch without it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, if are there any good reasons for such change, and it won't
>>>>> cause any API regressions, please place it on a separate patch, clearly
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... Or, maybe you felt that it won't make sense for MC-centric devices.
>>>>> On such case, please improve the note stating it on a way that it would
>>>>> be understandable on both MC-centric and bridge-centrid drivers.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not dropping the requirement, I'm rewriting it :-) The patch indeed
>>>> removes the above, but adds the following
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> If the driver doesn't advertise the ``V4L2_CAP_IO_MC`` :ref:`capability
>>>> <device-capabilities>`, applications shall initialize the ``mbus_code`` field
>>>> to zero and drivers shall ignore the value of the field. Drivers shall
>>>> enumerate all image formats. The enumerated formats may depend on the active
>>>> input or output of the device.
>>>>
>>>> If the driver advertises the ``V4L2_CAP_IO_MC`` :ref:`capability
>>>> <device-capabilities>`, applications may initialize the ``mbus_code`` field to
>>>> a valid :ref:`media bus format code <v4l2-mbus-pixelcode>`. If the
>>>> ``mbus_code`` field is not zero, drivers shall restrict enumeration to only the
>>>> image formats that can produce (for video output devices) or be produced from
>>>> (for video capture devices) that media bus code. Regardless of the value of
>>>> the ``mbus_code`` field, the enumerated image formats shall not depend on the
>>>> active configuration of the video device or device pipeline. Enumeration shall
>>>> otherwise operate as previously described.
>>>
>>> Hmm... it took me re-reading this text 4 or 5 times, in order to understand
>>> that you're actually meaning bridge-centric devices here :-)
>>>
>>> Also, you placed two independent and unrelated information at the same
>>> paragraph.
>>>
>>> IMHO, you should let it more clear, like, for example adding a numerated
>>> list, like:
>>>
>>> 1. Bridge-centric devices
>>>
>>> As such devices don't advertise the ``V4L2_CAP_IO_MC`` :ref:`capability
>>> <device-capabilities>`, applications shall initialize the ``mbus_code`` field
>>> to zero and drivers shall ignore the value of the field.
>>
>> I could settle for
>>
>> These devices don't advertise the ``V4L2_CAP_IO_MC`` :ref:`capability
>> <device-capabilities>`. Applications shall initialize the ``mbus_code`` field
>> to zero and drivers shall ignore the value of the field.
>>
>> and similarly below. It bothers me though, as "bridge" isn't formally
>> defined anywhere in the userspace API documentation. It's more formal to
>> explain the behaviour of individual ioctls based solely on the
>> V4L2_CAP_IO_MC flag, and gather all the explanation of what
>> bridge-centric vs. MC-centric means in a single place, an introductory
>
> How about "video node centric"? That's what I recall has been used
> previously to differentiate regular V4L2 uAPI drivers from MC-centric
> drivers. Bridge refers to hardware whereas MC-centric is software, just as
> video node centric would be.
I like that. Video node centric vs MC-centric. Although I think we had
this discussion before. We never really managed to come up with
satisfying names for this.
>
>> section, instead of spreading it through documentation of individual
>> ioctls. V4L2 has more UAPI documentation than most other kernel APIs,
>> but there are lots of places where details are not very clear.
>> Standardizing ioctl documentation on the use of common vocabulary
>> ("may", "shall", ...) and using clearly defined concepts (e.g.
>> V4L2_CAP_IO_MC) instead of losely defined ones (e.g. Bridge-centric
>> devices) that are explained in non-normative sections would increase
>> clarity. I thus prefer the wording in v8.1 of this patch, or possibly
>> with the small extension I've proposed in my previous e-mail.
>>
>> Hans, Sakari, what do you think ?
>
> My preference is with v8.1 wording, with bridge-centric replaced by video
> node centric. This is because it differentiates between the flag what
> actually defines device behaviour. That's what applications see, they don't
> necessarily know what kind of devices they're working with when they open
> the device node.
>
You can easily say: 'If the driver doesn't advertise the ``V4L2_CAP_IO_MC``
capability (also known as a 'video node centric' driver)'. That way you
associate the absence of the capability with the type of driver.
I would really like to keep the old text of the note, so replace:
"The enumerated formats may depend on the active input or output of the device."
with:
"After switching to another input or output the list of enumerated formats
may be different."
I know it says the same, but the original text clearly indicates that it is
the act of switching inputs/outputs that can cause a change of formats.
Just referring to the "active" input/output leaves it to the reader to infer
that the list can change when you select a new active input/output. It's better
(less work for the reader) to be explicit about that.
Regards,
Hans
