Hi Sakari,
On Wednesday 28 August 2013 19:39:19 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 06:14:44PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> ...
>
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_queue.c
> > > > > b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_queue.c index cd962be..0d80512 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_queue.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_queue.c
> > > > > @@ -149,7 +149,8 @@ int uvc_queue_init(struct uvc_video_queue
> > > > > *queue, enum v4l2_buf_type type,
> > > > > queue->queue.buf_struct_size = sizeof(struct uvc_buffer);
> > > > > queue->queue.ops = &uvc_queue_qops;
> > > > > queue->queue.mem_ops = &vb2_vmalloc_memops;
> > > > > - queue->queue.timestamp_type = V4L2_BUF_FLAG_TIMESTAMP_MONOTONIC;
> > > > > + queue->queue.timestamp_type = V4L2_BUF_FLAG_TIMESTAMP_MONOTONIC
> > > > > + | V4L2_BUF_FLAG_TIMESTAMP_SOF;
> > > > > ret = vb2_queue_init(&queue->queue);
> > > > > if (ret)
> > > > > return ret;
> > > > > diff --git a/include/media/videobuf2-core.h
> > > > > b/include/media/videobuf2-core.h index 6781258..033efc7 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/media/videobuf2-core.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/media/videobuf2-core.h
> > > > > @@ -307,6 +307,7 @@ struct v4l2_fh;
> > > > >
> > > > > * @buf_struct_size: size of the driver-specific buffer structure;
> > > > > * "0" indicates the driver doesn't want to use a custom buffer
> > > > > * structure type, so sizeof(struct vb2_buffer) will is used
> > > > >
> > > > > + * @timestamp_type: Timestamp flags; V4L2_BUF_FLAGS_TIMESTAMP_*
> > > > >
> > > > > * @gfp_flags: additional gfp flags used when allocating the
> > > > > buffers.
> > > > > * Typically this is 0, but it may be e.g. GFP_DMA or
__GFP_DMA32
> > > > > * to force the buffer allocation to a specific memory zone.
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
> > > > > b/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h index 691077d..c57765e 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h
> > > > > @@ -695,6 +695,16 @@ struct v4l2_buffer {
> > > > >
> > > > > #define V4L2_BUF_FLAG_TIMESTAMP_UNKNOWN 0x00000000
> > > > > #define V4L2_BUF_FLAG_TIMESTAMP_MONOTONIC 0x00002000
> > > > > #define V4L2_BUF_FLAG_TIMESTAMP_COPY 0x00004000
> > > > >
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Timestamp taken once the first pixel is received (or
> > > > > transmitted).
> > > > > + * If the flag is not set the buffer timestamp is taken at the end
> > > > > of
> > > > > + * the frame. This is not a timestamp type.
> > > >
> > > > UVC devices timestamp frames when the frame is captured, not when the
> > > > first pixel is transmitted.
> > >
> > > I.e. we shouldn't set the SOF flag? "When the frame is captured" doesn't
> > > say much, or almost anything in terms of *when*. The frames have
> > > exposure time and rolling shutter makes a difference, too.
> >
> > The UVC 1.1 specification defines the timestamp as
> >
> > "The source clock time in native deviceclock units when the raw frame
> > capture begins."
> >
> > What devices do in practice may differ :-)
>
> I think that this should mean start-of-frame - exposure time. I'd really
> wonder if any practical implementation does that however.
It's start-of-frame - exposure time - internal delays (UVC webcams are
supposed to report their internal delay value as well).
> What's your suggestion; should we use the SOF flag for this or do you prefer
> the end-of-frame timestamp instead? I think it'd be quite nice for drivers
> to know which one is which without having to guess, and based on the above
> start-of-frame comes as close to that definition as is meaningful.
SOF is better than EOF. Do we need a start-of-capture flag, or could we
document SOF as meaning start-of-capture or start-of-reception depending on
what the device can do ?
--
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
