On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 11:18:54PM +0100, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 at 23:03, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 07:47:31PM +0100, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > > > Before we all go on a well deserved weekend, let me recap what we > > > know. If I did not get something correctly, let me know. > > > > > > 1) Well behaved devices do not allow to set or get an incomplete async > > > control. They will stall instead (ref: Figure 2-21 in UVC 1.5 ) > > > 2) Both Laurent and Ricardo consider that there is a big chance that > > > some camera modules do not implement this properly. (ref: years of > > > crying over broken module firmware :) ) > > > > > > 3) ctrl->handle is designed to point to the fh that originated the > > > control. So the logic can decide if the originator needs to be > > > notified or not. (ref: uvc_ctrl_send_event() ) > > > 4) Right now we replace the originator in ctrl->handle for unfinished > > > async controls. (ref: > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_ctrl.c#n2050) > > > > > > My interpretation is that: > > > A) We need to change 4). We shall not change the originator of > > > unfinished ctrl->handle. > > > B) Well behaved cameras do not need the patch "Do not set an async > > > control owned by another fh" > > > C) For badly behaved cameras, it is fine if we slightly break the > > > v4l2-compliance in corner cases, if we do not break any internal data > > > structure. > > > > The fact that some devices may not implement the documented behaviour > > correctly may not be a problem. Well-behaved devices will stall, which > > means we shouldn't query the device while as async update is in > > progress. Badly-behaved devices, whatever they do when queried, should > > not cause any issue if we don't query them. > > I thought we could detect the stall and return safely. Isn't that the case? We could, but if we know the device will stall anyway, is there a reason not to avoid issuing the request in the first place ? > Why we have not seen issues with this? I haven't tested a PTZ device for a very long time, and you would need to hit a small time window to see the issue. > > We should not send GET_CUR and SET_CUR requests to the device while an > > async update is in progress, and use cached values instead. When we > > receive the async update event, we should clear the cache. This will be > > the same for both well-behaved and badly-behaved devices, so we can > > expose the same behaviour towards userspace. > > seting ctrl->loaded = 0 when we get an event sounds like a good idea > and something we can implement right away. > If I have to resend the set I will add it to the end. > > > We possibly also need some kind of timeout mechanism to cope with the > > async update event not being delivered by the device. > > This is the part that worries me the most: > - timeouts make the code fragile > - What is a good value for timeout? 1 second, 30, 300? I do not think > that we can find a value. I've been thinking about the implementation of uvc_fh cleanup over the weekend, and having a timeout would have the nice advantage that we could reference-count uvc_fh instead of implementing a cleanup that walks over all controls when closing a file handle. I think it would make the code simpler, and possibly safer too. > > Regarding the userspace behaviour during an auto-update, we have > > multiple options: > > > > For control get, > > > > - We can return -EBUSY > > - We can return the old value from the cache > > - We can return the new value fromt he cache > > > > Returning -EBUSY would be simpler to implement. > > Not only easy, I think it is the most correct, > > > I don't think the behaviour should depend on whether the control is read > > on the file handle that initiated the async operation or on a different > > file handle. > > > > For control set, I don't think we can do much else than returning > > -EBUSY, regardless of which file handle the control is set on. > > ACK. > > > > I will send a new version with my interpretation. > > > > > > Thanks for a great discussion > > Looking with some perspective... I believe that we should look into > the "userspace behaviour for auto controls" in a different patchset. > It is slightly unrelated to this discussion. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
