From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:43739 "EHLO
        relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752158AbdAJXww (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-media@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:52:52 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] Basic i.MX IPUv3 capture support
To: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
References: <1476466481-24030-1-git-send-email-p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
 <20161019213026.GU9460@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk>
 <CAH-u=807nRYzza0kTfOMv1AiWazk6FGJyz6W5_bYw7v9nOrccA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161229205113.j6wn7kmhkfrtuayu@pengutronix.de>
 <7350daac-14ee-74cc-4b01-470a375613a3@denx.de>
 <c38d80aa-5464-1e9d-e11a-f54716fdb565@mentor.com>
 <1483990983.13625.58.camel@pengutronix.de>
 <43564c16-f7aa-2d35-a41f-991465faaf8b@mentor.com>
CC: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
        Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@pengutronix.de>,
        Jean-Michel Hautbois <jean-michel.hautbois@veo-labs.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>,
        Gary Bisson <gary.bisson@boundarydevices.com>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>
From: Steve Longerbeam <steve_longerbeam@mentor.com>
Message-ID: <5b4bb7bd-83ae-c1f3-6b24-989dd6b0aa48@mentor.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:52:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <43564c16-f7aa-2d35-a41f-991465faaf8b@mentor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-media.vger.kernel.org>



On 01/09/2017 04:15 PM, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
>
>
> On 01/09/2017 11:43 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>> One is the amount and organization of subdevices/media entities visible
>> to userspace. The SMFCs should not be user controllable subdevices, but
>> can be implicitly enabled when a CSI is directly linked to a camif.
>
> I agree the SMFC could be folded into the CSI, but I see at least one
> issue.
>
> From the dot graph you'll see that the PRPVF entity can receive directly
> from the CSI, or indirectly via the SMFC. If the SMFC entity were folded
> into the CSI entity, there would have to be a "direct to PRPVF" output 
> pad
> and a "indirect via SMFC" output pad and I'm not sure how that info would
> be conveyed to the user. With a SMFC entity those pipelines are explicit.

In summary here, unless you have strong objection I'd prefer to keep a
distinct SMFC entity. It makes the pipelines more clear to the user, and it
better models the IPU internals.

>
>> Also I'm not convinced the 1:1 mapping of IC task to subdevices is the
>> best choice. It is true that the three tasks can be enabled separately,
>> but to my understanding, the PRP ENC and PRP VF tasks share a single
>> input channel. Shouldn't this be a single PRP subdevice with one input
>> and two (VF, ENC) outputs?
>
> Since the VDIC sends its motion compensated frames to the PRP VF task,
> I've created the PRPVF entity solely for motion compensated de-interlace
> support. I don't really see any other use for the PRPVF task except for
> motion compensated de-interlace.
>
> So really, the PRPVF entity is a combination of the VDIC and PRPVF 
> subunits.
>
> So looking at link_setup() in imx-csi.c, you'll see that when the CSI 
> is linked
> to PRPVF entity, it is actually sending to IPU_CSI_DEST_VDIC.
>
> But if we were to create a VDIC entity, I can see how we could then
> have a single PRP entity. Then if the PRP entity is receiving from the 
> VDIC,
> the PRP VF task would be activated.
>
> Another advantage of creating a distinct VDIC entity is that frames could
> potentially be routed directly from the VDIC to camif, for 
> motion-compensated
> frame capture only with no scaling/CSC. I think that would be IDMAC 
> channel
> 5, we've tried to get that pipeline to work in the past without 
> success. That's
> mainly why I decided not to attempt it and instead fold VDIC into 
> PRPVF entity.
>
>

Here also, I'd prefer to keep distinct PRPENC and PRPVF entities. You 
are correct
that PRPENC and PRPVF do share an input channel (the CSIs). But the PRPVF
has an additional input channel from the VDIC, and since my PRPVF entity 
roles
up the VDIC internally, it is actually receiving from the VDIC channel.

So unless you think we should have a distinct VDIC entity, I would like 
to keep this
the way it is.

Steve