Okay, so I tried to write up a little bit of an RFC to organize my
thoughts. I would love to get your thoughts:
RFC: A loopback device for the v4l2 subsystem.
# What is needed?
The common denominator for apps that use webcams in linux is the
v4l2 subsystem. The v4l2 subsystem could benefit from a loopback
device that allows one to compose custom video streams and present
them in a normal way from a /dev/video* device.
# Why is it needed?
The v4l2 is the framework is the kernel interface used for supporting
video output and video capture. This brings the webcam video to apps
like Cheese or a web browser or OBS.
However, there is no way to customize the composition of the video
stream before capture on these apps. Of course, apps like Cheese have
filters, but this is not something that is composible with other apps.
This makes it impossible to do something like the following:
* Composite a video scene with OBS.
* Use that composed video as my webcam for my Zoom call.
I think this would be cool, and I think that it would allow interesting
things to be done with video.
# Prior Art
The v4l2loopback project[1] provides a Linux kernel module to do just
this. This module provides a misc device node used to control the
loopback video devices. In particular, the misc device is used to create
and destroy loopback video devices. It's somewhat similar to the
/dev/loop-control dev node that is used to control block loop devices.
There is also the vim2m test driver[2] in the kernel that appears to do
some similar things. This module is a module that is used for testing
the v4l2-mem2mem framework. This module has a more modern structure with
a platform device that is used as the context for the other devices.
It also uses the m2m framework that I think could benefit an in-kernel
loopback implementation. It is also important to note that this module
does not generally ship with distribution kernels (like in Fedora),
likely due to the "test" designation.
# Possible paths forward
## Integrate v4l2loopback into the kernel
There is a lot to cleanup in the v4l2loopback code in order to get it
in shape for mainline inclusion. Having said that, this also a somewhat
tested implementation. There are even packages for using this project
from Ubuntu.
## Start with vim2m
I think the vim2m.c could provide a really strong base on which to
start a loopback implementation for the kernel. I see two options:
* Extend vim2m to include more loopback functionality, including
dynamic creation/deletion of video loopback devices.
* Copy the vim2m code to a new module and develop there.
The extend option is attractive so that a new module mustn't be
developed.
However, I am not sure that I want to complicate that module with
options that would required for a proper loopback implementation.
# My thoughts on where to go next
I think that the vim2m module provides a much nicer starting point for
an implementation of a mainline module. I think the the ideal solution
would start by using the vim2m source as a template and developing a
new module that incorporates the important functionality from
v4l2loopback.
# Assumptions I have
I have looked into the code, and the m2m framework appears to provide a
pair of vb2_queues that can be used for capture and output. I am assuming
that the framework would be reasonable to use for a loopback implementation.
[1] https://github.com/umlaeute/v4l2loopback
[2]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/drivers/media/test-drivers/vim2m.c?h=v5.11.2
Thanks,
wt
On 3/2/21 10:03 AM, Wren Turkal wrote:
Ezequiel,
Submitting for upstream inclusion is a good idea, and the driver
is licensed appropriately (gpl v2) for the kernel. I have asked
the current maintainer for their thoughts. They are supportive
of the idea, but they are in the middle of implementing an new
feature that they would like to finish. I will work it up for
inclusion when that work concludes since it's a pretty major change.
Having said that, does the patch I posted make sense? I think
that being able to enable the m2m framework without having to
build in a m2m driver explicitly makes good sense.
Also, thinking about this a little more, it might make more
sense use use vim2m and v4l2loopback as inspiration and
make something like loopback that looks more like vim2m.
Things I like about vim2m vs v4l2loopback right now:
* vim2m uses the m2m framework
* vim2m is better organized by using a platform device
to organize the devices that created under the context
of the platform device. v4l2lb uses a misc device and
doesn't explicitly place devices under in the context
of that device.
* The misc device created by v4l2lb is used to
dynamically add and remove v4l2lb video devices. It
It uses new IOCTLs to do that, which I wonder if there
is a better way.
* vim2m exposes config via a mechanism that doesn't
require a new tool. v4l2lb requires a new control
binary because of the custom ioctls.
So, I have a couple questions:
* Would it be better to use vim2m as a model to
implement something like v4l2loopback?
* If I were to do that should I copy vim2m to a
new module, or should vim2m be extended. FWIW,
vim2m appears to have two things against it:
* vim2m is a test v4l2 driver. It would need
to be changed to build as a non-test driver.
This is a pretty easy Kconfig change and maybe
moving files to a more appropriate place in the
linux source tree.
* v4l2loopback does have a number of features that
vim2m does not have. I will say that I think
that adding most importantant functionality
(new formats and dynamic creation of loopback
video devices in my mind) is probably very
approachable and may give us a more modern
linux module code.
Give the above, I am kinda leaning toward extending
vim2m code. So, do you have an opinion on the following?
Should it be a new module, or should it literally extend
and improve vim2m?
wt
On 3/1/21 6:11 PM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
Hi Wren,
How about you submit the loopback driver for integration in mainline?
We can review the driver, give feedback and help you get it merged.
Ezequiel
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, 5:32 PM Wren Turkal <wt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Okay, so I have found how to enable the option to be manually
selected.
Would a patch like the following be acceptable? Or is there a better
way to do this?
diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/Kconfig
b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/Kconfig
index bf49f83cb86f..25004137a982 100644
--- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/Kconfig
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ config V4L2_H264
# Used by drivers that need v4l2-mem2mem.ko
config V4L2_MEM2MEM_DEV
- tristate
+ tristate "V4L2 mem2mem framework support"
depends on VIDEOBUF2_CORE
# Used by LED subsystem flash drivers
Thanks,
wt
On 2/28/21 2:07 PM, Wren Turkal wrote:
> Hi there linux-media experts,
>
> I am working on the out-of-tree v4l2loopback module[1]. My
> current goal is to implement the videobuf2 api. However,
> it appears that I must use a different vbuf2_queue for the
> OUTPUT and CAPTURE types. It appears that the mem2mem
> framework has the ability to do just this. I came to this
> conclusion while looking at the vim2m test module's code.
> While trying to modify the loopback module, I have added
> some code to try to call v4l2_m2m_init. You can see my very
> WIP attempt at code here[2].
>
> I have installed the kernel-devel package on Fedora, which.
> Unfortunately, I get he following error messages when trying
> to compile:
>
> <errors>
> ERROR: modpost: "v4l2_m2m_release"
> [/home/wt/projects/kernel/v4l2loopback/v4l2loopback.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: modpost: "v4l2_m2m_init"
> [/home/wt/projects/kernel/v4l2loopback/v4l2loopback.ko] undefined!
> </errors>
>
> So, I looked into it, and Module.symvers and /proc/kallsyms
> don't have those symbols listed, so I think the Fedora kernel
> was not compiled with those symbols exported.
>
> Okay, so next I tried to build a custom kernel that does
> export those symbols. I managed to get it done by enabling
> the vim2m (VIDEO_VIM2M config option) module. The new
> Module.symvers includes the symbols; and the compile succeeds,
> which brings me to my final act.
>
> I need to expose those symbols without enabling the vim2m
> module since it is a testing module. I do not see a way
> to do that explicitly. The config option in question
> appears to be V4L2_MEM2MEM_DEV. And I haven't found a
> way to enable it without enabling something that implicitly
> selects it (which vim2m does). Do y'all have any suggestions
> for how to get these symbols exported properly when vim2m is
> not enabled?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Wren Turkal (wt)
>
> [1] https://github.com/umlaeute/v4l2loopback
<https://github.com/umlaeute/v4l2loopback>
> [2] https://github.com/wt/v4l2loopback/tree/m2m_try
<https://github.com/wt/v4l2loopback/tree/m2m_try>
