Hi Hans
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> Sorry for starting this discussion and then disappearing. I've been very
> busy lately, so my apologies for that.
>
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 18:14:33 Pawel Osciak wrote:
> > Hi Guennadi,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 06:13, Guennadi Liakhovetski
> > <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Monday, August 15, 2011 13:28:23 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > >> > > Hi Hans
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >> > > > but I've changed my mind: I think
> > >> > > > this should use a struct v4l2_format after all.
> > >>
> > >> While switching back, I have to change the struct vb2_ops::queue_setup()
> > >> operation to take a struct v4l2_create_buffers pointer. An earlier
> version
> > >> of this patch just added one more parameter to .queue_setup(), which is
> > >> easier - changes to videobuf2-core.c are smaller, but it is then
> > >> redundant. We could use the create pointer for both input and output. The
> > >> video plane configuration in frame format is the same as what is
> > >> calculated in .queue_setup(), IIUC. So, we could just let the driver fill
> > >> that one in. This would require then the videobuf2-core.c to parse struct
> > >> v4l2_format to decide which union member we need, depending on the buffer
> > >> type. Do we want this or shall drivers duplicate plane sizes in separate
> > >> .queue_setup() parameters?
> > >
> > > Let me explain my question a bit. The current .queue_setup() method is
> > >
> > > int (*queue_setup)(struct vb2_queue *q, unsigned int *num_buffers,
> > > unsigned int *num_planes, unsigned int sizes[],
> > > void *alloc_ctxs[]);
> > >
> > > To support multiple-size buffers we also have to pass a pointer to struct
> > > v4l2_create_buffers to this function now. We can either do it like this:
> > >
> > > int (*queue_setup)(struct vb2_queue *q,
> > > struct v4l2_create_buffers *create,
> > > unsigned int *num_buffers,
> > > unsigned int *num_planes, unsigned int sizes[],
> > > void *alloc_ctxs[]);
> > >
> > > and let all drivers fill in respective fields in *create, e.g., either do
> > >
> > > create->format.fmt.pix_mp.plane_fmt[i].sizeimage = ...;
> > > create->format.fmt.pix_mp.num_planes = ...;
> > >
> > > and also duplicate it in method parameters
> > >
> > > *num_planes = create->format.fmt.pix_mp.num_planes;
> > > sizes[i] = create->format.fmt.pix_mp.plane_fmt[i].sizeimage;
> > >
> > > or with
> > >
> > > create->format.fmt.pix.sizeimage = ...;
> > >
> > > for single-plane. Alternatively we make the prototype
> > >
> > > int (*queue_setup)(struct vb2_queue *q,
> > > struct v4l2_create_buffers *create,
> > > unsigned int *num_buffers,
> > > void *alloc_ctxs[]);
> > >
> > > then drivers only fill in *create, and the videobuf2-core will have to
> > > check create->format.type to decide, which of create->format.fmt.* is
> > > relevant and extract plane sizes from there.
> >
> >
> > Could we try exploring an alternative idea?
> > The queue_setup callback was added to decouple formats from vb2 (and
> > add some asynchronousness). But now we are doing the opposite, adding
> > format awareness to vb2. Does vb2 really need to know about formats? I
> > really believe it doesn't. It only needs sizes and counts. Also, we
> > are actually complicating things I think. The proposal, IIUC, would
> > look like this:
> >
> > driver_queue_setup(..., create, num_buffers, [num_planes], ...)
> > {
> > if (create != NULL && create->format != NULL) {
> > /* use create->fmt to fill sizes */
>
> Right.
>
> > } else if (create != NULL) { /* this assumes we have both format or
> sizes */
> > /* use create->sizes to fill sizes */
>
> No, create->format should always be set. If the application can fill in the
> sizeimage field(s), then there is no need for create->sizes.
>
> > } else {
> > /* use currently selected format to fill sizes */
>
> Right.
>
> > }
> > }
> >
> > driver_s_fmt(format)
> > {
> > /* ... */
> > driver_fill_format(&create->fmt);
> > /* ... */
> > }
>
> ???
>
> >
> > driver_create_bufs(create)
> > {
> > vb2_create_bufs(create);
> > }
> >
> > vb2_create_bufs(create)
> > {
> > driver_queue_setup(..., create, ...);
> > vb2_fill_format(&create->fmt); /* note different from
> > driver_fill_format(), but both needed */
>
> Huh? Why call vb2_fill_format? vb2 should have no knowledge whatsoever about
> formats. The driver needs that information in order to be able to allocate
> buffers correctly since that depends on the required format. But vb2 doesn't
> need that knowledge.
It would be good if you also could have a look at my reply to this Pawel's
mail:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.video-input-infrastructure/36905
and, specifically, at the vb2_parse_planes() function in it. That's my
understanding of what would be needed, if we preserve .queue_setup() and
use your last suggestion to include struct v4l2_format in struct
v4l2_create_buffers.
However, from your reply I couldn't understand your attitude to removing
.queue_setup() altogether. Do you see any disadvantages in doing so? Is it
serving any special role, that we are overseeing?
Thanks
Guennadi
>
> > }
> >
> > vb2_reqbufs(reqbufs)
> > {
> > driver_queue_setup(..., NULL, ...);
> > }
> >
> > The queue_setup not only becomes unnecessarily complicated, but I'm
> > starting to question the convenience of it. And we are teaching vb2
> > how to interpret format structs, even though vb2 only needs sizes, and
> > even though the driver has to do it anyway and knows better how.
>
> No, vb2 just needs to pass the format information from the user to the
> driver.
>
> There seems to be some misunderstanding here.
>
> The point of my original suggestion that create_bufs should use v4l2_format
> is that the driver needs the format information in order to decide how and
> where the buffers have to be allocated. Having the format available is the
> only reliable way to do that.
>
> This is already done for REQBUFS since the driver will use the current format
> to make these decisions.
>
> One way of simplifying queue_setup is actually to always supply the format.
> In the case of REQBUFS the driver might do something like this:
>
> driver_reqbufs(requestbuffers)
> {
> struct v4l2_format fmt;
> struct v4l2_create_buffers create;
>
> vb2_free_bufs(); // reqbufs should free any existing bufs
> if (requestbuffers->count == 0)
> return 0;
> driver_g_fmt(&fmt); // call the g_fmt ioctl op
> // fill in create
> vb2_create_bufs(create);
> }
>
> So vb2 just sees a call requesting to create so many buffers for a particular
> format, and it just hands that information over to the driver *without*
> parsing it.
>
> And the driver gets the request from vb2 to create X buffers for format F, and
> will figure out how to do that and returns the buffer/plane/allocator context
> information back to vb2.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
> > As for the idea to fill fmt in vb2, even if vb2 was to do it in
> > create_bufs, some code to parse and fill the format fields would need
> > to be in the driver anyway, because it still has to support s_fmt and
> > friends. So adding that code to vb2 would duplicate it, and if the
> > driver wanted to be non-standard in a way it filled the format fields,
> > we'd not be allowing that.
> >
> > My suggestion would be to remove queue_setup callback and instead
> > modify vb2_reqbufs and vb2_create_bufs to accept sizes and number of
> > buffers. I think it should simplify things both for drivers and vb2,
> > would keep vb2 format-unaware and save us some round trips between vb2
> > and driver:
> >
> > driver_create_bufs(...) /* optional */
> > {
> > /* use create->fmt (or sizes) */
> > ret = vb2_create_bufs(num_buffers, num_planes, buf_sizes,
> > plane_sizes, alloc_ctxs);
> > fill_format(&create->fmt) /* because s_fmt has to do it anyway, so
> > have a common function for that */
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > driver_reqbufs(...)
> > {
> > /* use current format */
> > return vb2_reqbufs(num_buffers, num_planes, buf_sizes,
> > plane_sizes, alloc_ctxs);
> > }
> >
> > And the call to both could easily converge into one in vb2, as the
> > only difference is that vb2_reqbufs would need to free first, if any
> > allocated buffers were present:
> >
> > vb2_reqbufs(num_buffers, num_planes, buf_sizes, plane_sizes, alloc_ctxs)
> > {
> > if (buffers_allocated(num_buffers, num_planes, buf_sizes,
> > plane_sizes, alloc_ctxs)) {
> > free_buffers(...);
> > }
> >
> > return vb2_create_bufs(num_buffers, num_planes, buf_sizes,
> > plane_sizes, alloc_ctxs);
> > }
> >
> > If the driver didn't want create_bufs, it'd just not implement it.
> > What do you think?
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Pawel Osciak
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
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
