On 20/07/2023 09:50, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> Add a simple test for VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING/VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_ROUTING.
>
> We can't (at least at the moment) really know here what kind of routings
> the driver would accept, but we can test a VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING call,
> followed by a VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_ROUTING call with the routing we
> received.
>
> Additionally, we can check that the returned pads and flags look fine,
> and also that setting obviously invalid routing will fail.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp | 12 ++++
> utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.h | 1 +
> utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 87 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp
> index e8359b2f..4b232314 100644
> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp
> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp
> @@ -1249,6 +1249,18 @@ void testNode(struct node &node, struct node &node_m2m_cap, struct node &expbuf_
> node.is_passthrough_subdev = has_source && has_sink;
>
> if (has_routes) {
> + printf("Sub-Device routing ioctls:\n");
> +
> + for (unsigned which = V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_TRY;
> + which <= V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_ACTIVE; which++) {
> +
> + printf("\ttest %s VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING/VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_ROUTING: %s\n",
> + which ? "Active" : "Try",
> + ok(testSubDevRouting(&node, which)));
> + }
> +
> + printf("\n");
> +
> for (unsigned which = V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_TRY;
> which <= V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_ACTIVE; which++) {
>
> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.h b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.h
> index 0cd43980..35b2274b 100644
> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.h
> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.h
> @@ -375,6 +375,7 @@ int testSubDevEnum(struct node *node, unsigned which, unsigned pad, unsigned str
> int testSubDevFormat(struct node *node, unsigned which, unsigned pad, unsigned stream);
> int testSubDevSelection(struct node *node, unsigned which, unsigned pad, unsigned stream);
> int testSubDevFrameInterval(struct node *node, unsigned pad, unsigned stream);
> +int testSubDevRouting(struct node *node, unsigned which);
>
> // Buffer ioctl tests
> int testReqBufs(struct node *node);
> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp
> index 5545b0dc..e59d67f7 100644
> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp
> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp
> @@ -551,3 +551,77 @@ int testSubDevSelection(struct node *node, unsigned which, unsigned pad, unsigne
>
> return have_sel ? 0 : ENOTTY;
> }
> +
> +int testSubDevRouting(struct node *node, unsigned which)
> +{
> + const uint32_t all_route_flags_mask = V4L2_SUBDEV_ROUTE_FL_ACTIVE;
> + struct v4l2_subdev_routing routing = {};
> + struct v4l2_subdev_route routes[NUM_ROUTES_MAX] = {};
> + unsigned int i;
> + int ret;
> +
> + routing.which = which;
> + routing.routes = (__u64)&routes;
> + routing.num_routes = 0;
> + memset(routing.reserved, 0xff, sizeof(routing.reserved));
> +
> + /*
> + * First test that G_ROUTING either returns success, or ENOSPC and
> + * updates num_routes.
> + */
> +
> + ret = doioctl(node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING, &routing);
> + fail_on_test(ret && ret != ENOSPC);
> + fail_on_test(ret == ENOSPC && routing.num_routes == 0);
> + fail_on_test(check_0(routing.reserved, sizeof(routing.reserved)));
> +
> + if (routing.num_routes)
> + return 0;
Shouldn't this be 'if (!routing.num_routes)'?
> +
> + /* Then get the actual routes */
> +
> + routing.num_routes = NUM_ROUTES_MAX;
> + fail_on_test(doioctl(node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING, &routing));
I assume that num_routes is always updated to the actual number of routes, right?
That's not actually explained clearly in the spec. It says that if the app provided
num_routes is too small, then it is updated, but it says nothing about what happens
if the app provided value is too large.
Assuming I am right, then I would rewrite this code as follows:
__u32 num_routes = routing.num_routes;
routing.num_routes = num_routes + 1;
fail_on_test(doioctl(node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING, &routing));
fail_on_test(routing.num_routes != num_routes);
> +
> + /* Check the validity of route pads and flags */
> +
> + if (node->pads) {
> + for (i = 0; i < routing.num_routes; ++i) {
> + const struct v4l2_subdev_route *route = &routes[i];
> + const struct media_pad_desc *sink;
> + const struct media_pad_desc *source;
> +
> + fail_on_test(route->sink_pad >= node->entity.pads);
> + fail_on_test(route->source_pad >= node->entity.pads);
> +
> + sink = &node->pads[route->sink_pad];
> + source = &node->pads[route->source_pad];
> +
> + fail_on_test(!(sink->flags & MEDIA_PAD_FL_SINK));
> + fail_on_test(!(source->flags & MEDIA_PAD_FL_SOURCE));
> + fail_on_test(route->flags & ~all_route_flags_mask);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Set the same routes back, which should always succeed. */
> +
> + memset(routing.reserved, 0xff, sizeof(routing.reserved));
> + fail_on_test(doioctl(node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_ROUTING, &routing));
> + fail_on_test(check_0(routing.reserved, sizeof(routing.reserved)));
> +
> + /* Test setting invalid pads */
> +
> + if (node->pads) {
> + for (i = 0; i < routing.num_routes; ++i) {
> + struct v4l2_subdev_route *route = &routes[i];
> +
> + route->sink_pad = node->entity.pads + 1;
> + }
> +
> + memset(routing.reserved, 0xff, sizeof(routing.reserved));
> + fail_on_test(doioctl(node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_ROUTING, &routing) != EINVAL);
> + fail_on_test(check_0(routing.reserved, sizeof(routing.reserved)));
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Regards,
Hans
