On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 3:56 PM Irui Wang <irui.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2021-02-03 at 19:44 +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > Hi Irui,
> >
> > Thanks for pushing this forward. I had two small conflicts when
> > applying this patch to the media tree, so you may want to rebase
> > before sending the next version. Please see the comments inline.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 3:18 PM Irui Wang <irui.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > MTK H264 Encoder(VENC_SYS) and VP8 Encoder(VENC_LT_SYS) are two
> > > independent hardware instance. They have their owner interrupt,
> > > register mapping, and special clocks.
> > >
> > > This patch seperates them into two drivers:
> >
> > seperates -> separates
> >
> > Also the patch does not result in two drivers, but two devices.
> >
> > > User Call "VIDIOC_QUERYCAP":
> > > H264 Encoder return driver name "mtk-vcodec-enc";
> > > VP8 Encoder return driver name "mtk-venc-vp8.
> >
> > I wonder if we need to use two different names? The driver is the
> > same, so it makes sense to me that both devices return
> > "mtk-vcodec-enc". Userspace can then list the formats on the CAPTURE
> > queue in order to query the supported codecs.
> >
> I'm afraid we can't, there is a symlink when chrome use the
> encoder(50-media.rules):
> ATTR{name} == "mtk-vcodec-enc", SYMLINK+="video-enc"
> ATTR{name} == "mtk-venc-vp8", SYMLINK+="video-enc0"
> if we use the same name,how userspace access the encoder? maybe there
> will be some modifications are needed in VEA(for example)?
Chrome OS can use a different udev rule to differentiate the two
nodes. Actually I already have a CL to support this:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/overlays/board-overlays/+/2673592
So both nodes being named the same won't be a problem for Chrome OS,
and makes more sense for an upstream merge anyway.
Cheers,
Alex.
