On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 04:39:59PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On 2/20/25 15:22, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 09:21:16AM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> >> There apparently is no reason to require 3 queued buffers for RkISP1,
> >> as the driver operates with a scratch buffer where data can be
> >> directed to if there's no available buffer provided by userspace.
> >>
> >> Reduce the number of required buffers to 0 by removing the
> >> initialization of min_queued_buffers, to allow applications to operate
> >> by queueing capture buffers on-demand.
> >>
> >> Tested with libcamera, by operating with a single capture request. The
> >> same request (and the associated capture buffer) gets recycled once
> >> completed. This of course causes a frame rate drop but doesn't hinder
> >> operations.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I just noticed v2 of this series:
> > media: rkisp1: Reduce min_queued_buffers to 1
> >
> > has been collected instead of this v3.
>
> Did you mark your v2 as Superseded in patchwork when you posted the v3?
> I marked your v1 and v2 as Superseded today when I was cleaning up patchwork,
> so I know you didn't :-)
>
> When I post a new version I always mark the old one as Superseded, exactly
> to prevent such things from happening.
That won't be possible in all cases, not all patch submitters have
patchwork accounts.
In libcamera we use a patchwork bot to automatically mark series as
superseded. It doesn't do a perfect job, but it considerably reduces the
maintenance work. Could we do the same ?
> Also, more people should help keep patchwork clean. I think I am usually the
> person who is doing this, but this is a collective responsibility.
>
> Part of the job description for someone with commit rights is actually to
> keep patchwork clean.
I think that requiring committers to update the patchwork state of
patches they merge is fine, the additional work is offset by the ability
to commit patches directly.
I don't think it would have helped in the case of patches submitted by
non-committers. Even if I had merged this change myself, I missed
Jacopo's v3 on the list, and I would have probably equally missed it in
patchwork without v2 being marked as superseded.
> > And I noticed because a user complained to me about this.
> >
> > Now, I can provide an update based on the now merged v2, not a big
> > deal, but this depresses me a bit as the discussion about
> > implementing multi-commiter model is apparently (again) stalled.
> >
> > I know, sh*t happens (TM) and hiccups are expected in the process,
> > we all make mistakes and I'm not even sure through which path the
> > patch has been collected, but I could have handled this one easily,
> > and instead what we have is:
> >
> > 1) an unhappy user that will likely have to wait for the next release
> > 2) me having to send an additional (rather trivial) patch
> > 3) Someone will have to review, collect, PR etc etc
> >
> > (and I'm not even mentioning this patch is 3 lines)
> >
> > Issues like this one seems to be considered a fact of life we decided
> > is fine to live with, while every possible corner case of the proposed
> > multi-committer model is analyzed with great concern like we're
> > trading a perfect model for something that has to be equally perfect.
> >
> > And while I agree the biggest reason for the proverbial v4l2 slow pace
> > is the reviewers scarcity and the limited maintainers bandwidth, now
> > that we have everything in place to reduce the system clogginess
> > it still seems we're not all sold for it. I really don't get it, sorry.
> >
> >> ---
> >> v2->v3:
> >> - Remove min_queued_buffers initialization
> >>
> >> v1->v2:
> >> The first version of this patch set min_queued_buffers to 1, but setting it
> >> to 0 doesn't compromise operations and it's even better as it allows application
> >> to queue buffers to the capture devices on-demand. If a buffer is not provided
> >> to the DMA engines, image data gets directed to the driver's internal scratch
> >> buffer.
> >> ---
> >> drivers/media/platform/rockchip/rkisp1/rkisp1-capture.c | 3 ---
> >> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/rockchip/rkisp1/rkisp1-capture.c b/drivers/media/platform/rockchip/rkisp1/rkisp1-capture.c
> >> index 2bddb4fa8a5c..2f0c610e74b9 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/platform/rockchip/rkisp1/rkisp1-capture.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/rockchip/rkisp1/rkisp1-capture.c
> >> @@ -35,8 +35,6 @@
> >> #define RKISP1_SP_DEV_NAME RKISP1_DRIVER_NAME "_selfpath"
> >> #define RKISP1_MP_DEV_NAME RKISP1_DRIVER_NAME "_mainpath"
> >>
> >> -#define RKISP1_MIN_BUFFERS_NEEDED 3
> >> -
> >> enum rkisp1_plane {
> >> RKISP1_PLANE_Y = 0,
> >> RKISP1_PLANE_CB = 1,
> >> @@ -1563,7 +1561,6 @@ static int rkisp1_register_capture(struct rkisp1_capture *cap)
> >> q->ops = &rkisp1_vb2_ops;
> >> q->mem_ops = &vb2_dma_contig_memops;
> >> q->buf_struct_size = sizeof(struct rkisp1_buffer);
> >> - q->min_queued_buffers = RKISP1_MIN_BUFFERS_NEEDED;
> >> q->timestamp_flags = V4L2_BUF_FLAG_TIMESTAMP_MONOTONIC;
> >> q->lock = &node->vlock;
> >> q->dev = cap->rkisp1->dev;
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
