Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] media: Add controls for JPEG quantization tables

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

 



On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 1:48 AM Paul Kocialkowski <contact@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 10:25 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > Hi Hans,
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
> > On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 14:42 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > On 09/06/2018 12:00 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > > From: Shunqian Zheng <zhengsq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Add V4L2_CID_JPEG_QUANTIZATION compound control to allow userspace
> > > > configure the JPEG quantization tables.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Shunqian Zheng <zhengsq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../media/uapi/v4l/extended-controls.rst      | 31 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  .../media/videodev2.h.rst.exceptions          |  1 +
> > > >  drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c          | 10 ++++++
> > > >  include/uapi/linux/v4l2-controls.h            | 12 +++++++
> > > >  include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h                |  1 +
> > > >  5 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/extended-controls.rst b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/extended-controls.rst
> > > > index 9f7312bf3365..1335d27d30f3 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/extended-controls.rst
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/extended-controls.rst
> > > > @@ -3354,7 +3354,38 @@ JPEG Control IDs
> > > >      Specify which JPEG markers are included in compressed stream. This
> > > >      control is valid only for encoders.
> > > >
> > > > +.. _jpeg-quant-tables-control:
> > > >
> > > > +``V4L2_CID_JPEG_QUANTIZATION (struct)``
> > > > +    Specifies the luma and chroma quantization matrices for encoding
> > > > +    or decoding a V4L2_PIX_FMT_JPEG_RAW format buffer. The :ref:`itu-t81`
> > > > +    specification allows 8-bit quantization coefficients for
> > > > +    baseline profile images, and 8-bit or 16-bit for extended profile
> > > > +    images. Supporting or not 16-bit precision coefficients is driver-specific.
> > > > +    Coefficients must be set in JPEG zigzag scan order.
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > +.. c:type:: struct v4l2_ctrl_jpeg_quantization
> > > > +
> > > > +.. cssclass:: longtable
> > > > +
> > > > +.. flat-table:: struct v4l2_ctrl_jpeg_quantization
> > > > +    :header-rows:  0
> > > > +    :stub-columns: 0
> > > > +    :widths:       1 1 2
> > > > +
> > > > +    * - __u8
> > > > +      - ``precision``
> > > > +      - Specifies the coefficient precision. User shall set 0
> > > > +        for 8-bit, and 1 for 16-bit.
> > >
> > > So does specifying 1 here switch the HW encoder to use extended profile?
> > > What if the HW only supports baseline? The rockchip driver doesn't appear
> > > to check the precision field at all...
> > >
> >
> > The driver is missing to check that, when the user sets this control.
> >
> > > I think this needs a bit more thought.
> > >
> > > I am not at all sure that this is the right place for the precision field.
> > > This is really about JPEG profiles, so I would kind of expect a JPEG PROFILE
> > > control (just like other codec profiles), or possibly a new pixelformat for
> > > extended profiles.
> > >
> > > And based on that the driver would interpret these matrix values as 8 or
> > > 16 bits.
> > >
> >
> > Right, the JPEG profile control is definitely needed. I haven't add it because
> > it wouldn't be used, since this VPU can only do baseline.
>
> Well, I suppose it would still be relevant that you add it for the
> encoder and only report baseline there.
>
> > However, the problem is that some JPEGs in the wild have with 8-bit data and
> > 16-bit quantization coefficients, as per [1] and [2]:
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/martinhath/jpeg-rust/issues/1
> > [2] https://github.com/libjpeg-turbo/libjpeg-turbo/pull/90
> >
> > So, in order to support decoding of these images, I've added the precision
> > field to the quantization control. The user would be able to set a baseline
> > or extended profile thru a (future) profile control, and if 16-bit
> > tables are found, and if the hardware supports them, the driver
> > would be able to support them.
> >
> > Another option, which might be even better, is have explicit baseline
> > and extended quantization tables controls, e.g.: V4L2_CID_JPEG_QUANT
> > and V4L2_CID_JPEG_EXT_QUANT.
>
> I think this makes more sense than a common structure with an indication
> bit on how to interpret the data.
>
> However, it seems problematic that userspace can't figure out whether
> 16-bit quant tables are supported with a baseline profile and just has
> to try and see.
>
> Hans, do you think this is an acceptable approach or should we rather
> stick to the standard here, at the cost of not supporting these pictures
> that were encoded with this common abuse of the standard?

Perhaps we just need a control called V4L2_CID_JPEG_QUANT_PRECISION,
where drivers can set the min/max (e.g. min = 8, max = 16, step = 8)
to the range they support and user space can select the precision it
wants, if the hardware gives a choice?

Best regards,
Tomasz

_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip



[Index of Archives]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux Sound]     [ALSA Users]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Media]     [Kernel]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux