On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:43 PM Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Tomasz, > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:31:19PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:11 PM Dafna Hirschfeld wrote: > > > On 10.06.20 15:34, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:11:33PM +0200, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote: > > >>> On 04.06.20 19:39, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > >>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 04:56:04PM +0200, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote: > > >>>>> From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> For video capture it is the driver that reports the colorspace, > > >>>>> Y'CbCr/HSV encoding, quantization range and transfer function > > >>>>> used by the video, and there is no way to request something > > >>>>> different, even though many HDTV receivers have some sort of > > >>>>> colorspace conversion capabilities. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks for working on this! Please see my comments inline. > > >>>> > > >>>>> For output video this feature already exists since the application > > >>>>> specifies this information for the video format it will send out, and > > >>>>> the transmitter will enable any available CSC if a format conversion has > > >>>>> to be performed in order to match the capabilities of the sink. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> For video capture we propose adding new pix_format flag: > > >>>>> V4L2_PIX_FMT_FLAG_HAS_CSC. The flag is set by the application, > > >>>>> the driver will interpret the ycbcr_enc/hsv_enc, and quantization fields > > >>>>> as the requested colorspace information and will attempt to > > >>>>> do the conversion it supports. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Drivers set the flags > > >>>>> V4L2_FMT_FLAG_CSC_YCBCR_ENC, > > >>>>> V4L2_FMT_FLAG_CSC_HSV_ENC, > > >>>>> V4L2_FMT_FLAG_CSC_HSV_QUANTIZATION, > > >>>> > > >>>> Do we need this level of granularity? The drivers would ignore > > >>>> unsupported encoding/quantization settings and reset them to supported > > >>>> ones anyway, so if one doesn't support changing given parameter, it > > >>>> would just return back the original stream parameter. > > >>> > > >>> I think this granularity allows userspace to know ahead what is supported > > >>> and what is not so it doesn't have to guess. > > >>> > > >> > > >> The userspace needs to guess anyway, because there is no way to > > >> enumerate the supported target parameters. For example, even if the > > >> CSC_YCBCR_ENC bit is set, only only DEFAULT, 601 and BT2020 could be > > >> supported. If the userspace wants to get the 709 encoding, it needs to > > >> explicitly try setting it and see if the TRY_FMT/S_FMT operation accepts > > >> the setting. > > > > > > yes, indeed, Hans Verkuil suggested those flags. Maybe it is indeed enough > > > to have one flag. > > > > > > > Hans, what's your thought on this? > > > > >> > > >> [snip] > > >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c > > >>>>> index a376b351135f..51e009936aad 100644 > > >>>>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c > > >>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c > > >>>>> @@ -477,6 +477,13 @@ static long subdev_do_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, void *arg) > > >>>>> case VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_FMT: { > > >>>>> struct v4l2_subdev_format *format = arg; > > >>>>> + if (!(format->format.flags & V4L2_MBUS_FRAMEFMT_HAS_CSC)) { > > >>>>> + format->format.colorspace = V4L2_COLORSPACE_DEFAULT; > > >>>>> + format->format.xfer_func = V4L2_XFER_FUNC_DEFAULT; > > >>>>> + format->format.ycbcr_enc = V4L2_YCBCR_ENC_DEFAULT; > > >>>>> + format->format.quantization = V4L2_QUANTIZATION_DEFAULT; > > >>>>> + } > > >>>> > > >>>> Wouldn't this break setting the colorspaces on the sink pads, for which > > >>>> the flag isn't required? Actually there is some unfortunate statement in > > >>>> the documentation related to this: > > >>>> > > >>>> "This information supplements the colorspace and must be set by the > > >>>> driver for capture streams and by the application for output streams, > > >>>> see Colorspaces." > > >>>> > > >>>> However, I don't think there is any notion of "capture" and "output" for > > >>>> subdevices, right? Instead, the pad direction would have to be checked, > > >>>> but AFAICT there is no access to this kind of information from this > > >>>> wrapper. > > >>> > > >>> Actually in coming v4 there is no new code added accept of the new fields and > > >>> macros of the API. I think there is no need to change any code. > > >> > > >> Agreed. > > >> > > >>>>> + > > >>>>> memset(format->reserved, 0, sizeof(format->reserved)); > > >>>>> memset(format->format.reserved, 0, sizeof(format->format.reserved)); > > >>>>> return v4l2_subdev_call(sd, pad, set_fmt, subdev_fh->pad, format); > > >>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/v4l2-mediabus.h b/include/uapi/linux/v4l2-mediabus.h > > >>>>> index 123a231001a8..89ff0ad6a631 100644 > > >>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/v4l2-mediabus.h > > >>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/v4l2-mediabus.h > > >>>>> @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ > > >>>>> #include <linux/types.h> > > >>>>> #include <linux/videodev2.h> > > >>>>> +#define V4L2_MBUS_FRAMEFMT_HAS_CSC 0x0001 > > >>>>> + > > >>>>> /** > > >>>>> * struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt - frame format on the media bus > > >>>>> * @width: image width > > >>>>> @@ -36,7 +38,8 @@ struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt { > > >>>>> __u16 ycbcr_enc; > > >>>>> __u16 quantization; > > >>>>> __u16 xfer_func; > > >>>>> - __u16 reserved[11]; > > >>>>> + __u16 flags; > > >>>> > > >>>> Are we okay with a u16 for flags? > > >>> > > >>> I am fine with it, though don't mind changing it if there are objections. > > >>> > > >> > > >> I'd suggest making it a u32 to be a bit more future-proof. > > > > > > ok, I see that just changing the type to __u32 and the reserved array > > > to 'reserved[9]' increases the struct size from 48 to 52 because of padding. > > > There are two ways to solve it, > > > - move the flags field to be just above 'ycbcr_enc' > > > - change reserve to 'reserve[8]' > > > > > > Is moving fields order in a struct ok? If so it save us 2 bytes. > > > > Since the structure is a part of the stable UAPI, we can't reorder the > > fields. Similarly, we can't change the struct size, because it's > > embedded in the ioctl code. (Although there are ways around it, not > > currently implemented by V4L2.) That leaves us only the second option > > - changing reserved to [8]. > > You can also possibly do > > __u16 ycbcr_enc; > __u16 quantization; > __u16 xfer_func; > __u16 reserved2; > __u32 flags; > __u16 reserved[8]; > > to explicitly show there's a hole. Good point. I didn't realize that there actually was a hole. Thought that xfer_func ended at a 32-bit boundary. Perhaps when changing this, we could make it __u32 reserved[4]? Or would that have some compatibility concerns? Best regards, Tomasz