Re: [RFCv4 PATCH 1/8] tuner-core: rename check_mode to supported_mode

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Monday, June 13, 2011 13:45:14 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em 13-06-2011 07:23, Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> > On Monday, June 13, 2011 00:06:19 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> Em 12-06-2011 15:09, Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> >>> On Sunday, June 12, 2011 19:27:21 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>> Em 12-06-2011 13:07, Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> >>>>> On Sunday, June 12, 2011 16:37:55 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>>>> Em 12-06-2011 07:59, Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> >>>>>>> From: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The check_mode function checks whether a mode is supported. So calling it
> >>>>>>> supported_mode is more appropriate. In addition it returned either 0 or
> >>>>>>> -EINVAL which suggests that the -EINVAL error should be passed on. However,
> >>>>>>> that's not the case so change the return type to bool.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I prefer to keep returning -EINVAL. This is the proper thing to do, and
> >>>>>> to return the result to the caller. A fixme should be added though, so,
> >>>>>> after someone add a subdev call that would properly handle the -EINVAL
> >>>>>> code for multiple tuners, the functions should return the error code
> >>>>>> instead of 0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, you can't return -EINVAL here. It is the responsibility of the bridge
> >>>>> driver to determine whether there is e.g. a radio tuner. So if one of these
> >>>>> tuner subdevs is called with mode radio while it is a tv tuner, then that
> >>>>> is not an error, but instead it is a request that can safely be ignored
> >>>>> as not relevant for that tuner. It is up to the bridge driver to ensure
> >>>>> that a tuner is loaded that is actually valid for the radio mode.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Subdev ops should only return errors when there is a real problem (e.g. i2c
> >>>>> errors) and should just return 0 if a request is not for them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's why I posted these first two patches: these functions suggest that you
> >>>>> can return an error if the mode doesn't match when you really cannot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If I call v4l2_device_call_until_err() for e.g. s_frequency, then the error
> >>>>> that is returned should match a real error (e.g. an i2c error), not that one
> >>>>> of the tv tuners refused the radio mode. I know there is a radio tuner somewhere,
> >>>>> otherwise there wouldn't be a /dev/radio node.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I firmly believe that the RFCv4 series is correct and just needs an additional
> >>>>> patch adding some documentation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, it would make sense to move the first three patches to the end
> >>>>> instead if you prefer. Since these are cleanups, not bug fixes like the others.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The errors at tuner should be propagated. If there's just one tuner, the error
> >>>> code should just be returned by the ioctl. But, if there are two tuners, if the bridge 
> >>>> driver calls G_TUNER (or any other tuner subdev call) and both tuners return -EINVAL, 
> >>>> then it needs to return -EINVAL to userspace. If just one returns -EINVAL, and the 
> >>>> other tuner returns 0, then it should return 0. So, it is about the opposite behaviour 
> >>>> implemented at v4l2_device_call_until_err().
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, but no, that's not true. You are trying to use the error codes from tuner
> >>> subdevs to determine whether none of the tuner subdevs support a certain tuner mode.
> >>
> >> Not only that. There are some cases where the tuner driver may not bind for some reason.
> >> So, even if the bridge driver does support a certain mode, a call to G_TUNER may fail
> >> (for example, if tea5767 probe failed). Only with a proper return code, the bridge driver
> >> can detect if the driver found some issue.
> > 
> > Surely, that's an error reported by tuner_probe, isn't it? That's supposed to ensure
> > that the tuner driver was loaded and initialized correctly. I'm not sure if it does,
> > but that's definitely where any errors of that kind should be reported.
> > 
> > Looking at it some more, it seems to me that s_type_addr should also return an
> > error if there are problems. Ditto for tuner_s_config.
> > 
> > An alternative solution is to keep a 'initialized' boolean that is set to true
> > once the tuner is fully configured. If g_tuner et al are called when the tuner
> > is not fully configured, then you can return -ENODEV or -EIO or something like that.
> 
> NACK. This would be just an ugly workaround. 

Agreed :-)

> 
> > But that's a separate status check and has nothing to do with mode checking.
> > 
> >>> E.g., you want to change something for a radio tuner and there are no radio tuner
> >>> subdevs. But that's the job of the bridge driver to check. That has the overview,
> >>> the lowly subdevs do not. The subdevs just filter the ops and check the mode to see
> >>> if they should handle it and ignore it otherwise.
> >>>
> >>> Only if they have to handle it will they return a possible error. The big problem
> >>> with trying to use subdev errors codes for this is that you don't see the difference
> >>> between a real error of a subdev (e.g. -EIO when an i2c access fails) and a subdev
> >>> that returns -EINVAL just because it didn't understand the tuner mode.
> >>>
> >>> So the bridge may return -EINVAL to the application instead of the real error, which
> >>> is -EIO.
> >>
> >> An -EIO would also be discarded, as errors at v4l2_device_call_all() calls don't return
> >> anything. So, currently, the bridge has to assume that no errors happened and return 0.
> > 
> > Obviously, v4l2_device_call_all calls should be replaced with v4l2_device_call_until_err.
> > I've no problem with that.
> 
> See bellow.
> 
> >>
> >>> That's the whole principle behind the sub-device model: sub-devices do not know
> >>> about 'the world outside'. So if you pass RADIO mode to S_FREQUENCY and there is no
> >>> radio tuner, then the bridge driver is the one that should detect that and return
> >>> -EINVAL.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, as mentioned before, it can also be done in video_ioctl2.c by checking
> >>> the tuner mode against the device node it's called on. But that requires tightening
> >>> of the V4L2 spec first.
> >>
> >> Yes, video_ioctl2 (or, currently, the bridge driver) shouldn't allow an invalid operation.
> >> But if the call returns an error, this error should be propagated. 
> >>
> >> Also, as I've explained before, even adding the invalid mode check inside video_ioctl,
> >> you may still have errors if the registered tuners don't support the mode, because one 
> >> of the tuners didn't registered properly.
> > 
> > And that's something that tuner_probe/s_type_addr/s_config should have detected.
> 
> I'm almost sure that they don't do it, currently: s_type_addr/s_config also calls
> v4l2_device_call_all(). No errors are returned back. The tuner_probe call also can't
> do much, as it doesn't know in advance if the device has one or two tuners.

I know they don't. But that's what should happen.

> > Or, should that be impossible (I would have to spend more time to analyze that)
> > we might have to add a 'validate_tuner' op that can be called to verify all tuners
> > are configured correctly.
> 
> You're wanting to create a very complex patchset just to justify that replacing
> from -EINVAL to a bool is the right thing to do. It isn't. The point is that:
> if, for any reason, an ioctl fails, it should return an _error_, and _not_ a boolean.

True for an ioctl, not necessarily true for a subdev op. I think one thing that
confuses the issue here is that we have no clear error code for subdev ops that
return a 'not handled' code. To some extent ENOIOCTLCMD is used for that, but
it's not consistently used. Only if all subdevs called from a v4l2_device_call_all
type macro return 'not handled' should it actually return some error.

> After fixing v4l2_device_call_all() to allow it to return errors, the next step
> is to review all calls to it, and add a proper handler for the errors. s_type_addr,
> s_config, g_tuner, s_tuner, etc should be handling errors.
> 
> In other words, the original v4l2_device_call_all() that were just replicating the
> previous I2C behaviour is a mistake, as it doesn't provide any feedback about errors.
> This needs to be replaced by something that it is aware of the errors. If you take
> a look at v4l2-subdev, there's just one operation that doesn't return an error
> (v4l2_subdev_internal_ops.unregistered, never called from drivers). All the others 
> returns an error. However, the default usage is to simply discard errors. This is wrong.
> Errors should be propagated.

It's not a mistake, it's just that nobody had the time to sort out the mess.
The current behavior is basically bug-compatible with the pre-subdev days.
It's only since all bridge drivers were converted to use subdevs that we can
even think about cleaning up error handling.

> 
> AFAIK, there are only a two types error propagation that are currently needed:
> 
> 1) Call all subdevices. If one returns 0, assumes that the operation succeeded. This is
>    used when there are multiple subdevs, but they're mutually exclusive: only one of them 
>    will handle such call. It is needed by tuners and by controls, on devices that have 
>    several subdevs providing different sets of controls.
> 
> 2) Call all subdevices until an error. Used when the same operation needs to be set
>    on multiple subdevices. The subdevices that don't implement such operation should 
>    return -ENOIOCTLCMD.
> 
> Btw, v4l2_device_call_subdevs_until_err() has currently a bug: if all sub-devices return
> -ENOIOCTLCMD, it returns 0. It should, instead, return -ENOIOCTLCMD, in order to allow
> the bridge drivers to return an error code to the userspace, to indicate that the
> IOCTL was not handled.
> 
> Eventually, we may just use (2) for everything, if we patch all subdev drivers to return
> -ENOIOCTLCMD if they are discarding a subdev call, but, in this case, the bridge drivers 
> will need to replace the -ENOIOCTLCMD to an error code defined at the V4L2 spec (or we
> can have a macro for that).

Option 2 is the correct approach. If all subdev drivers return -ENOIOCTLCMD,
then return an error. If one driver returns a non-0 and non-ENOIOCTLCMD error,
then return that, otherwise return 0.

> A side note: the only error codes defined at the media API DocBook are: -EACCES, -EAGAIN,
> -EBADF, -EBUSY, -EFAULT, -EIO, -EINTR, -EINVAL, -ENFILE, -ENOMEM, -ENOSPC, -ENOTTY, -ENXIO,
> -EMFILE, -EPERM, -ERANGE and EPIPE. On most places, the error codes are defined per ioctl.
> We need to review the DocBook and the drivers to be sure that they match the API specs, 
> in terms of returned codes. It probably makes sense to create a section with the valid error
> codes, remove most of error codes comments from each ioctl, and add a link to the global
> error code section.
> 
> Ah, -ENODEV is not currently defined, but -ENXIO is defined on a few places. -ENXIO means 
> "No such device or address". So, it may make sense to replace all -ENODEV to -ENXIO at 
> the drivers.

Right, all very lovely, but I just want to fix the broken tuner code. We all know
error handling is a big mess and could keep a small army of janitors busy for a year.

For now I'll remove those two offending patches and redo the patch series without
them.

Regards,

	Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Input]     [Video for Linux]     [Gstreamer Embedded]     [Mplayer Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux