On 16/02/2024 20:49, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> Le lundi 12 février 2024 à 09:38 +0100, Hans Verkuil a écrit :
>> On 09/02/2024 19:03, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Le jeudi 08 février 2024 à 09:31 +0100, Hans Verkuil a écrit :
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Benjamin Gaignard's 'DELETE_BUFS' series [1] is almost ready, but there is
>>>> one outstanding issue: it works closely together with VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS,
>>>> but that ioctl has long since been a thorn in my eye due to the use of
>>>> struct v4l2_format embedded in the struct v4l2_create_buffers. This makes
>>>> it hard to use in applications.
>>>>
>>>> The only fields of that struct v4l2_format that are actually used are:
>>>>
>>>> type
>>>>
>>>> and, depending on 'type':
>>>>
>>>> pix.sizeimage
>>>> pix_mp.num_planes, pix_mp.plane_fmt.sizeimage
>>>> sdr.buffersize
>>>> meta.buffersize
>>>> vbi.samples_per_line, vbi.count
>>>> sliced.io_size
>>>
>>> Sorry to disrupt, but that is only true since no driver support allocating for a
>>> different target input. In stateless CODEC drivers, when these are used as
>>> reference frame, extra space is needed to store reference data like motion
>>> vectors and more.
>>>
>>> The size of the data will vary depending on the width/height and pixelformat
>>> (from which we can deduce the depth). Of course, some driver will only operate
>>> with secondary buffer (post processed display buffer), which is the case for the
>>> driver this feature is being demonstrated, but won't be true for other drivers.
>>>
>>> I sincerely think this RFC does not work for the use case we are adding delete
>>> bufs for.
>>
>> I don't understand your reply. I'm not sure if you are talking about the fields
>> that VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS uses, or about the proposed new ioctl.
>>
>> If you are talking about CREATE_BUFS, then it really is ignoring all other
>> fields from the struct v4l2_format. See vb2_create_bufs() in videobuf2-v4l2.c.
>
> Which demonstrate that the API is not fully implemented. What in my opinion it
> should be doing is to pass the format structure to the driver try_format for the
> adjustments to the format to take place. The updated fmt is then returned like
> any other calls in V4L2, and buffers are allocated according to that.
No, that's really messy. Really, CREATE_BUFS should just use the buffer size
given. If the application wants to call TRY_FMT to obtain the size, then it is
free to do so and just use that in CREATE_BUFS. It is a bad idea to combine
TRY_FMT and creating new buffers into one ioctl. It should never have been
designed like that, and the fact that for all those years nobody bothered to
try to do anything with the format field besides getting the buffer size clearly
indicates that. It makes the ioctl much too complicated.
>
>>
>> If you are talking about my proposed ADD_BUFS ioctl: what is missing there
>> that you need?
>
> As I explain, allocation size is not something application can calculate easily
> for codec driver reference frames. Width, height and bitdepth will have an
> impact on the size in a very hardware specific way. There is a solution of
> course to use your proposal, which is that user must call TRY_FMT themself in
> order to obtain the correct size from the driver (and due to how create bufs in
> currently implemented by vb2, it is already thecase). I'm not too concern, we
> just loose the powerful (or over engineered, up to you to decide) bit of
> CREATE_BUFS (the API, not its implementation), which could have avoided having
> to do 2 ioctl. Its likely not a hot path, so again, I'm not worried.
>
> I do dislike though that this come up after a year of submitting and updating
> the original proposal and hope some coding effort will be shared as our budget
> owners are reaching their tolerance limits.
The only question here is whether to call the new ioctl 'DELETE_BUFS' or 'REMOVE_BUFS'.
If you have no particular preference, then I will just ask Benjamin to rename
it to REMOVE_BUFS and post a v20. It should be ready to go, hopefully.
Regards,
Hans
>
> regards,
> Nicolas
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>>>
>>>> See vb2_create_bufs() in videobuf2-v4l2.c.
>>>>
>>>> It's a pain to use since you need to fill in different fields
>>>> depending on the type in order to allocate the new buffer memory,
>>>> but all you want is just to give new buffer sizes.
>>>>
>>>> I propose to add a new ioctl:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h b/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
>>>> index 03443833aaaa..a7398e4c85e7 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
>>>> @@ -2624,6 +2624,39 @@ struct v4l2_create_buffers {
>>>> __u32 reserved[5];
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * struct v4l2_add_buffers - VIDIOC_ADD_BUFS argument
>>>> + * @type: enum v4l2_buf_type
>>>> + * @memory: enum v4l2_memory; buffer memory type
>>>> + * @count: entry: number of requested buffers,
>>>> + * return: number of created buffers
>>>> + * @num_planes: requested number of planes for each buffer
>>>> + * @sizes: requested plane sizes for each buffer
>>>> + * @start_index:on return, index of the first created buffer
>>>> + * @total_count:on return, the total number of allocated buffers
>>>> + * @capabilities: capabilities of this buffer type.
>>>> + * @flags: additional buffer management attributes (ignored unless the
>>>> + * queue has V4L2_BUF_CAP_SUPPORTS_MMAP_CACHE_HINTS capability
>>>> + * and configured for MMAP streaming I/O).
>>>> + * @max_num_buffers: if V4L2_BUF_CAP_SUPPORTS_MAX_NUM_BUFFERS capability flag is set
>>>> + * this field indicate the maximum possible number of buffers
>>>> + * for this queue.
>>>> + * @reserved: future extensions
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct v4l2_add_buffers {
>>>> + __u32 type;
>>>> + __u32 memory;
>>>> + __u32 count;
>>>> + __u32 num_planes;
>>>> + __u32 size[VIDEO_MAX_PLANES];
>>>> + __u32 start_index;
>>>> + __u32 total_count;
>>>> + __u32 capabilities;
>>>> + __u32 flags;
>>>> + __u32 max_num_buffers;
>>>> + __u32 reserved[7];
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> /**
>>>> * struct v4l2_delete_buffers - VIDIOC_DELETE_BUFS argument
>>>> * @index: the first buffer to be deleted
>>>> @@ -2738,6 +2771,7 @@ struct v4l2_delete_buffers {
>>>>
>>>> #define VIDIOC_QUERY_EXT_CTRL _IOWR('V', 103, struct v4l2_query_ext_ctrl)
>>>> #define VIDIOC_DELETE_BUFS _IOWR('V', 104, struct v4l2_delete_buffers)
>>>> +#define VIDIOC_ADD_BUFS _IOWR('V', 105, struct v4l2_add_buffers)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /* Reminder: when adding new ioctls please add support for them to
>>>>
>>>> Note that this patch sits on top of [1].
>>>>
>>>> The new struct is mostly the same as v4l2_create_buffers, but replacing the
>>>> embedded v4l2_format with just the data it actually needs. I also renamed
>>>> 'index' to 'start_index' and added a new 'total_count' field to report the
>>>> total number of buffers. VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS used the 'index' field for that
>>>> when called with count == 0, but that is awkward once you allow for deleting
>>>> buffers.
>>>>
>>>> Implementing VIDIOC_ADD_BUFS would be very easy, it is almost all done in
>>>> vb2. Drivers would just need to point .vidioc_add_bufs to vb2_ioctl_add_bufs.
>>>>
>>>> The vb2_queue ops do not change since those are already based on just an
>>>> array of requested sizes.
>>>>
>>>> One reason I am bringing this up is that this has a potential impact on the
>>>> name of the new ioctl in [1]. Do we call it 'VIDIOC_DELETE_BUFS' or
>>>> 'VIDIOC_REMOVE_BUFS'?
>>>>
>>>> I like the ADD/REMOVE pair better than ADD/DELETE. I never quite liked
>>>> 'CREATE/DELETE' since buffer memory is only created/deleted in the MMAP
>>>> streaming case, not with DMABUF/USERPTR. I think add/remove are better names.
>>>>
>>>> I think CREATE/REMOVE is also acceptable, so I am leaning towards calling
>>>> the new ioctl in [1] VIDIOC_REMOVE_BUFS instead of VIDIOC_DELETE_BUFS.
>>>>
>>>> So, please comment on this RFC, both whether adding a CREATE_BUFS replacement
>>>> makes sense, and whether using REMOVE_BUFS instead of DELETE_BUFS makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally it would be nice to introduce both ADD_BUFS and REMOVE_BUFS at the
>>>> same time, so any userspace application that needs to use REMOVE_BUFS to
>>>> remove buffers can rely on the new ADD_BUFS ioctl being available as well.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>> [1]: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/list/?series=12195
>>>
>>
>
