Hi Ricardo,
On 10/13/22 11:56, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 at 11:54, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/13/22 11:52, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
>>> Hi Hans
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 at 09:55, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Yunke,
>>>>
>>>> On 9/29/22 06:11, Yunke Cao wrote:
>>>>> Removing priv_user_controls and its related checks.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect this is wrong because:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. priv_user_controls == priv_user_controls_check is not always true.
>>>>>
>>>>> priv_user_controls counts the number of controls with
>>>>> id >= V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE (0x08000000).
>>>>> priv_user_controls_check uses V4L2_CTRL_DRIVER_PRIV ((id) & 0xffff) >= 0x1000).
>>>>>
>>>>> The private controls defined in V4L2_CID_USER_BASE + 0x1000 will count towards
>>>>> priv_user_controls_check, but not priv_user_controls. For example,
>>>>> V4L2_CID_USER_MEYE_BASE (include/uapi/linux/v4l2-controls.h#n158).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Line 205 returns error for id >= V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE. Counting
>>>>> priv_user_controls will not happen.
>>>>
>>>> A long time ago all private controls in a driver started at ID V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE.
>>>> When the control framework was created, all private controls were changed to start
>>>> at a control class base + 0x1000, and to stay compatible with old userspace the
>>>> control framework emulated enumerating such controls from V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE.
>>>
>>> The emulated controls are also enumerated with?
>>>
>>> qctrl.id = id | V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_NEXT_CTRL | V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_NEXT_COMPOUND; ?
>>
>> No, they are not.
>>
>>>
>>> Because if so, they wont pass the test:
>>>
>>> if (id >= V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE)
>>> return fail("no V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE allowed\n");
>>
>> Exactly: they should never be enumerated that way, if they appear, then the
>> emulation is broken and this test fails.
>
>
> Gotcha... I was not aware of that emulation.
>
> So that means we have to add that emulation to uvc control framework :(
Ah, now I understand your interest in this!
Hmm. UVC never had it, so there are no userspace apps that rely on this.
I am inclined to patch v4l2-compliance to skip this check for uvc.
Or more specifically: if it is uvc, then no V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE controls
should be seen.
Any userspace app that wants to use the new uvc private controls should
update their code. This is for the ROI, right? It's probably failing due to
the V4L2_CID_UVC_REGION_OF_INTEREST_AUTO control. But since this only makes
sense if the application can also use the compound control to obtain the ROI,
supporting V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE is pretty pointless anyway: that would only
see the _AUTO control.
Regards,
Hans
>
> Thanks!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> These compliance tests verify that that emulation is still working correctly.
>>>>
>>>> So this code is OK. If you have an example of where it fails, then that is likely
>>>> to be a bug elsewhere. I would need more information to see what could be the cause
>>>> in that case.
>>>>
>>>> For the record:
>>>>
>>>> Rejected-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunke Cao <yunkec@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-controls.cpp | 22 +---------------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-controls.cpp b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-controls.cpp
>>>>> index 999dbcd7..18c9f638 100644
>>>>> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-controls.cpp
>>>>> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-controls.cpp
>>>>> @@ -182,7 +182,6 @@ int testQueryExtControls(struct node *node)
>>>>> __u32 which = 0;
>>>>> bool found_ctrl_class = false;
>>>>> unsigned user_controls = 0;
>>>>> - unsigned priv_user_controls = 0;
>>>>> unsigned user_controls_check = 0;
>>>>> unsigned priv_user_controls_check = 0;
>>>>> unsigned class_count = 0;
>>>>> @@ -299,30 +298,11 @@ int testQueryExtControls(struct node *node)
>>>>> user_controls++;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> - for (id = V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE; ; id++) {
>>>>> - memset(&qctrl, 0xff, sizeof(qctrl));
>>>>> - qctrl.id = id;
>>>>> - ret = doioctl(node, VIDIOC_QUERY_EXT_CTRL, &qctrl);
>>>>> - if (ret && ret != EINVAL)
>>>>> - return fail("invalid query_ext_ctrl return code (%d)\n", ret);
>>>>> - if (ret)
>>>>> - break;
>>>>> - if (qctrl.id != id)
>>>>> - return fail("qctrl.id (%08x) != id (%08x)\n",
>>>>> - qctrl.id, id);
>>>>> - if (checkQCtrl(node, qctrl))
>>>>> - return fail("invalid control %08x\n", qctrl.id);
>>>>> - priv_user_controls++;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> -
>>>>> - if (priv_user_controls + user_controls && node->controls.empty())
>>>>> + if (user_controls && node->controls.empty())
>>>>> return fail("does not support V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_NEXT_CTRL\n");
>>>>> if (user_controls != user_controls_check)
>>>>> return fail("expected %d user controls, got %d\n",
>>>>> user_controls_check, user_controls);
>>>>> - if (priv_user_controls != priv_user_controls_check)
>>>>> - return fail("expected %d private controls, got %d\n",
>>>>> - priv_user_controls_check, priv_user_controls);
>>>>> return result;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> base-commit: 7f560aede797b659b585f063ed1f143f58b03df5
>>>>> change-id: 20220929-remove_private_control_check-ab8cc38a1b9e
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
