Hi Sakari, On Sunday 11 November 2012 10:51:06 Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 09:47:00PM +0100, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > > On 11/05/2012 11:45 AM, Alain VOLMAT wrote: > > > Hi Laurent, > > > > > > Yes indeed, meta plane seems a good candidate. It was the other option. > > > > > > The pity with that is that the FMT can thus no longer be standard FMT > > > but a specific format that include both plane 0 with real frame data and > > > plane 1 with meta data. > > > So, standard V4L2 application (that doesn't know about this time > > > discontinuity stuff) wouldn't be able to push things into the encoder > > > since they are not aware of this 2 plane format. > > > > > > Or maybe we should export 2 format, 1 standard one that doesn't have > > > time discontinuity support, thus not best performance but still can do > > > things and a second format that has 2 planes > > > > Not sure what media guys think about it, I was considering making it > > possible for applications (or libv4l or any other library) to request > > additional meta data plane at a video capture driver, e.g. with > > VIDIOC_S_FMT ioctl. With same fourcc for e.g. 1-planar buffers with image > > data and 2-planar buffer with meta data in plane 1. However this would be > > somehow device-specific, rather > > How about this: add a special 4cc that tells only that the 4cc is defined > per-plane, and define it in planes instead? We could also add a flags field > to tell that a plane is actually a part of the same image in cases where > true multi-plane formats are being used at the same time. > > You could use this to pass frame metadata (when it's produced by the sensor > itself) to the user space as well. That sounds like a good idea to explore. > What I haven't yet thought is how this can be told to the user using > ENUMFMT. > > > than a completely generic interface. Since frame-meta data is often device > > specific. For camera it would depend on the image sensor whether the > > Device-specific metadata should have their own 4ccs as device specific image > formats. > > > additional plane request on a /dev/video? would be fulfilled by a driver > > or not. > > > > I don't think duplicating 4CCs for the sake of additional meta-data plane > > is a good idea. > > No, that'd really explode the number of different 4ccs. > > > Your case is a bit different, since you're passing data from application > > to a device. Maybe we could somewhat standardize the meta data buffer > > content, > > We need to define a proper format for this. It can include other per-buffer > parameters to / from the device as well. > > > e.g. by using some standard header specifying what kind of meta data > > follows. Perhaps struct v4l2_plane::data_offset can be helpful here. This > > is how it's documented > > > > * @data_offset: offset in the plane to the start of data; usually 0, > > * unless there is a header in front of the data > > > > I mean, the header would specify what actual meta-data is in that > > additional plane. Standardising that "standard" meta-data would be > > another issue. > > > > I think this per buffer device control issue emerged in the past during > > the Exynos Multi Format Codec development. There were proposals of per- > > buffer v4l2 controls. IIRC it is currently resolved in that driver by > > doing VIDIOC_S_CTRL before QBUF. However the meta data plane approach > > looks more interesting to me. > > That sounds like a simple (and thus good) solution to me: a button control > for resetting the average bitrate calculation. It'd be by far more simple > than using the metadata plane for it. Any known drawbacks that I can't see? > Even if the number of these parameters grow a little extended controls are > fine for the purpose. The main issue as far as I know would be to synchronize the control with buffers. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
