From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ec2-52-27-115-49.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com ([52.27.115.49]:49705 "EHLO osg.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754535AbdHYKf1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2017 06:35:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 07:35:17 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Hans Verkuil Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List , Linux Media Mailing List , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Laurent Pinchart , Sakari Ailus , Hans Verkuil Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] media: videodev2: add a flag for vdev-centric devices Message-ID: <20170825073517.1112d618@vento.lan> In-Reply-To: <44bdeabc-8899-8f7e-dd26-4284c5b589a1@cisco.com> References: <8d504be517755ee9449a007b5f2de52738c2df63.1503653839.git.mchehab@s-opensource.com> <4f771cfa-0e0d-3548-a363-6470b32a6634@cisco.com> <20170825070632.28580858@vento.lan> <44bdeabc-8899-8f7e-dd26-4284c5b589a1@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Em Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:13:53 +0200 Hans Verkuil escreveu: > On 08/25/2017 12:06 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Fri, 25 Aug 2017 11:44:27 +0200 > > Hans Verkuil escreveu: > > > >> On 08/25/2017 11:40 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >>> From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab > >>> > >>> As both vdev-centric and mc-centric devices may implement the > >>> same APIs, we need a flag to allow userspace to distinguish > >>> between them. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab > >>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst | 6 ++++++ > >>> Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-querycap.rst | 4 ++++ > >>> include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h | 2 ++ > >>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst > >>> index a72d142897c0..eb3f0ec57edb 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst > >>> +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/open.rst > >>> @@ -33,6 +33,12 @@ For **vdev-centric** control, the device and their corresponding hardware > >>> pipelines are controlled via the **V4L2 device** node. They may optionally > >>> expose via the :ref:`media controller API `. > >>> > >>> +.. note:: > >>> + > >>> + **vdev-centric** devices should report V4L2_VDEV_CENTERED > >> > >> You mean CENTRIC, not CENTERED. > > > > Yeah, true. I'll fix it. > > > >> But I would change this to MC_CENTRIC: the vast majority of drivers are VDEV centric, > >> so it makes a lot more sense to keep that as the default and only set the cap for > >> MC-centric drivers. > > > > I actually focused it on what an userspace application would do. > > > > An specialized application for a given hardware will likely just > > ignore whatever flag is added, and use vdev, mc and subdev APIs > > as it pleases. So, those applications don't need any flag at all. > > > > However, a generic application needs a flag to allow them to check > > if a given hardware can be controlled by the traditional way > > to control the device (e. g. if it accepts vdev-centric type of > > hardware control). > > > > It is an old desire (since when MC was designed) to allow that > > generic V4L2 apps to also work with MC-centric hardware somehow. > > No, not true. The desire is that they can use the MC to find the > various device nodes (video, radio, vbi, rc, cec, ...). But they > remain vdev-centric. vdev vs mc centric has nothing to do with the > presence of the MC. It's how they are controlled. No, that's not I'm talking about. I'm talking about libv4l plugin (or whatever) that would allow a generic app to work with a mc-centric device. That's there for a long time (since when we were reviewing the MC patches back in 2009 or 2010). > > Regarding userspace applications: they can't check for a VDEV_CENTRIC > cap since we never had any. I.e., if they do: > > if (!(caps & VDEV_CENTRIC)) > /* unsupported device */ > > then they would fail for older kernels that do not set this flag. > > But this works: > > if (caps & MC_CENTRIC) > /* unsupported device */ > > So this really needs to be an MC_CENTRIC capability. That won't work. The test should take into account the API version too. Assuming that such flag would be added for version 4.15, with a VDEV_CENTRIC, the check would be: /* * There's no need to check version here: libv4l may override it * to support a mc-centric device even for older versions of the * Kernel */ if (caps & V4L2_CAP_VDEV_CENTRIC) is_supported = true; /* * For API version lower than 4.15, there's no way to know for * sure if the device is vdev-centric or not. So, either additional * tests are needed, or it would assume vdev-centric and output * some note about that. */ if (version < KERNEL_VERSION(4, 15, 0)) maybe_supported = true; Thanks, Mauro