Re: DRM Format Modifiers in v4l2

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:47:01AM +0100, Brian Starkey wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:49:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas@ndufresne.ca> wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 24 ao??t 2017 ?? 13:26 +0100, Brian Starkey a ??crit :
> > > > > What I mean was: an application can use the modifier to give buffers from
> > > > > one device to another without needing to understand it.
> > > > >
> > > > > But a generic video capture application that processes the video itself
> > > > > cannot be expected to know about the modifiers. It's a custom HW specific
> > > > > format that you only use between two HW devices or with software written
> > > > > for that hardware.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, makes sense.
> > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, in DRM the API lets you get the supported formats for each
> > > > > > modifier as-well-as the modifier list itself. I'm not sure how exactly
> > > > > > to provide that in a control.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have support for a 'menu' of 64 bit integers: V4L2_CTRL_TYPE_INTEGER_MENU.
> > > > > You use VIDIOC_QUERYMENU to enumerate the available modifiers.
> > > > >
> > > > > So enumerating these modifiers would work out-of-the-box.
> > > > 
> > > > Right. So I guess the supported set of formats could be somehow
> > > > enumerated in the menu item string. In DRM the pairs are (modifier +
> > > > bitmask) where bits represent formats in the supported formats list
> > > > (commit db1689aa61bd in drm-next). Printing a hex representation of
> > > > the bitmask would be functional but I concede not very pretty.
> > > 
> > > The problem is that the list of modifiers depends on the format
> > > selected. Having to call S_FMT to obtain this list is quite
> > > inefficient.
> > > 
> > > Also, be aware that DRM_FORMAT_MOD_SAMSUNG_64_32_TILE modifier has been
> > > implemented in V4L2 with a direct format (V4L2_PIX_FMT_NV12MT). I think
> > > an other one made it the same way recently, something from Mediatek if
> > > I remember. Though, unlike the Intel one, the same modifier does not
> > > have various result depending on the hardware revision.
> > 
> > Note on the intel modifers: On most recent platforms (iirc gen9) the
> > modifier is well defined and always describes the same byte layout. We
> > simply didn't want to rewrite our entire software stack for all the
> > old gunk platforms, hence the language. I guess we could/should
> > describe the layout in detail, but atm we're the only ones using it.
> > 
> > On your topic of v4l2 encoding the drm fourcc+modifier combo into a
> > special v4l fourcc: That's exactly the mismatch I was thinking of.
> > There's other examples of v4l2 fourcc being more specific than their
> > drm counters (e.g. specific way the different planes are laid out).
> 
> I'm not entirely clear on the v4l2 fourccs being more specific than
> DRM ones - do you mean e.g. NV12 vs NV12M? Specifically in the case of
> multi-planar formats I think it's a non-issue because modifiers are
> allowed to alter the number of planes and the meanings of them. Also
> V4L2 NV12M is a superset of NV12 - so NV12M would always be able to
> describe a DRM NV12 buffer.
> 
> I don't see the "special v4l2 format already exists" case as a problem
> either. It would be up to any drivers that already have special
> formats to decide if they want to also support it via a more generic
> modifiers API or not.
> 
> The fact is, adding special formats for each combination is
> unmanageable - we're talking dozens in the case of our hardware.

Hm right, we can just remap the special combos to the drm-fourcc +
modifier style. Bonus point if v4l does that in the core so not everyone
has to reinvent that wheel :-)
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch