Hi,
On 06/06/2021 02:59, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Tomi,
Thank you for the patch.
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 02:34:55PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 24/05/2021 13:44, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
Update v4l2_subdev_link_validate() to use routing and streams for
validation.
Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c | 184 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 166 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c
index da6ea9b14631..b30b456d8d99 100644
--- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c
+++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
#include <linux/videodev2.h>
#include <linux/export.h>
#include <linux/version.h>
+#include <linux/sort.h>
#include <media/v4l2-ctrls.h>
#include <media/v4l2-device.h>
@@ -894,6 +895,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_subdev_link_validate_default);
static int
v4l2_subdev_link_validate_get_format(struct media_pad *pad,
+ u32 stream,
struct v4l2_subdev_format *fmt)
{
if (is_media_entity_v4l2_subdev(pad->entity)) {
@@ -902,6 +904,7 @@ v4l2_subdev_link_validate_get_format(struct media_pad *pad,
fmt->which = V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_ACTIVE;
fmt->pad = pad->index;
+ fmt->stream = stream;
return v4l2_subdev_call(sd, pad, get_fmt, NULL, fmt);
}
@@ -1012,31 +1015,176 @@ bool v4l2_subdev_has_route(struct v4l2_subdev_krouting *routing,
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_subdev_has_route);
+static int cmp_u32(const void *a, const void *b)
+{
+ u32 a32 = *(u32 *)a;
+ u32 b32 = *(u32 *)b;
+
+ return a32 > b32 ? 1 : (a32 < b32 ? -1 : 0);
+}
+
int v4l2_subdev_link_validate(struct media_link *link)
{
- struct v4l2_subdev *sink;
- struct v4l2_subdev_format sink_fmt, source_fmt;
- int rval;
+ int ret;
+ unsigned int i;
No need for a blank line, and I'd move i and ret (in that order) after
the variables below.
- rval = v4l2_subdev_link_validate_get_format(
- link->source, &source_fmt);
- if (rval < 0)
- return 0;
+ struct v4l2_subdev *source_subdev =
+ media_entity_to_v4l2_subdev(link->source->entity);
+ struct v4l2_subdev *sink_subdev =
+ media_entity_to_v4l2_subdev(link->sink->entity);
+ struct device *dev = sink_subdev->entity.graph_obj.mdev->dev;
No need for a blank line here either.
- rval = v4l2_subdev_link_validate_get_format(
- link->sink, &sink_fmt);
- if (rval < 0)
- return 0;
+ struct v4l2_subdev_krouting routing;
Same.
- sink = media_entity_to_v4l2_subdev(link->sink->entity);
+ static const u32 default_streams[] = { 0 };
I'd move this one at the top.
Ok (to all above).
- rval = v4l2_subdev_call(sink, pad, link_validate, link,
- &source_fmt, &sink_fmt);
- if (rval != -ENOIOCTLCMD)
- return rval;
+ u32 num_source_streams = 0;
+ const u32 *source_streams;
+ u32 num_sink_streams = 0;
+ const u32 *sink_streams;
+
+ dev_dbg(dev, "validating link \"%s\":%u -> \"%s\":%u\n",
+ link->source->entity->name, link->source->index,
+ link->sink->entity->name, link->sink->index);
+
+ /* Get source streams */
+
+ memset(&routing, 0, sizeof(routing));
+
+ ret = v4l2_subdev_get_routing(source_subdev, NULL, &routing);
+
+ if (ret && ret != -ENOIOCTLCMD)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (ret == -ENOIOCTLCMD) {
+ num_source_streams = 1;
+ source_streams = default_streams;
+ } else {
+ u32 *streams;
+
+ streams = kmalloc_array(routing.num_routes, sizeof(u32),
+ GFP_KERNEL);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < routing.num_routes; ++i) {
+ struct v4l2_subdev_route *route = &routing.routes[i];
+
+ if (!(route->flags & V4L2_SUBDEV_ROUTE_FL_ACTIVE))
+ continue;
+
+ if (route->source_pad == link->source->index)
+ streams[num_source_streams++] =
+ route->source_stream;
+ }
+
+ sort(streams, num_source_streams, sizeof(u32), &cmp_u32, NULL);
+
+ source_streams = streams;
+
+ v4l2_subdev_free_routing(&routing);
+ }
Could this be moved to a separate function ? The code below is very
similar.
Yes. It makes handling of the default_streams a bit more complex, but
it's still cleaner to have a separate func.
+
+ /* Get sink streams */
+
+ memset(&routing, 0, sizeof(routing));
+
+ ret = v4l2_subdev_get_routing(sink_subdev, NULL, &routing);
+
+ if (ret && ret != -ENOIOCTLCMD)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (ret == -ENOIOCTLCMD) {
+ num_sink_streams = 1;
+ sink_streams = default_streams;
+ } else {
+ u32 *streams;
- return v4l2_subdev_link_validate_default(
- sink, link, &source_fmt, &sink_fmt);
+ streams = kmalloc_array(routing.num_routes, sizeof(u32),
+ GFP_KERNEL);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < routing.num_routes; ++i) {
+ struct v4l2_subdev_route *route = &routing.routes[i];
+
+ if (!(route->flags & V4L2_SUBDEV_ROUTE_FL_ACTIVE))
+ continue;
+
+ if (route->sink_pad == link->sink->index)
+ streams[num_sink_streams++] =
+ route->sink_stream;
+ }
+
+ sort(streams, num_sink_streams, sizeof(u32), &cmp_u32, NULL);
Are you aware that there can be duplicate in the streams array, as a
given stream on a sink pad can be routed to multiple source pads ? I
think that will fail the sink and source streams match test below.
Yes, I have fixed that issue.
+
+ sink_streams = streams;
+
+ v4l2_subdev_free_routing(&routing);
+ }
+
+ if (num_source_streams != num_sink_streams) {
+ dev_err(dev,
+ "Sink and source stream count mismatch: %d vs %d\n",
+ num_source_streams, num_sink_streams);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ /* Validate source and sink stream formats */
+
+ for (i = 0; i < num_source_streams; ++i) {
+ struct v4l2_subdev_format sink_fmt, source_fmt;
+ u32 stream;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (source_streams[i] != sink_streams[i]) {
+ dev_err(dev, "Sink and source streams do not match\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
What if the source subdev as a route enabled that produces a stream, and
the sink subdev has not corresponding enabled route ? Isn't this a valid
configuration ? For instance, when a CSI-2 sensor produces image data
and embedded data in two streams with different CSI-2 DT, the embedded
data doesn't have to be captured, it could be dropped in the CSI-2
receiver.
Yes. Although in some cases the sink may not be able to drop the stream,
but I don't think we can know that here. So I've fixed this to allow
more source streams than sink streams.
Tomi
