>> > >> > Video timings >> > ------------- >> > >> > Once the bus is configured and the data format is set it is finally >possible >> > to determine what resolutions and framerates are supported. Here we run >into >> > a problem, though. The current V4L2 API is not clear on how that should >be >> > done. >> > >> > We have three enumeration ioctls involved in this: either >VIDIOC_ENUMSTD to >> > enumerate the supported video standards for analog TV video encoders >and >> > decoders, and VIDIOC_ENUM_FRAMESIZES/FRAMEINTERVALS to enumerate native >> > sensor resolutions and framerates. Unfortunately the spec is not clear >whether >> > ENUM_FRAMESIZES/INTERVALS really refers to the sensor (or more general, >the >> > component that is the initial source of the video stream) or to the >sizes >> > and framerates that you can capture on the video node. >> > >> > What makes this worse is that there is an essential ioctl missing: you >need >> > to have the equivalent of VIDIOC_S_STD to setup a sensor to a specific >> > resolution/framerate. Right now VIDIOC_S_FMT is used for that, but that >is >> > really meant to take an input resolution and scale it up or down to the >> > desired resolution. It is not meant to setup a sensor (or video source >or sink >> > in general) to a particular resolution. >> > >> > To fix this we need to 1) specify that the framesize/interval >enumeration >> > relates to the video source and not to the output of a possible scaler, >and >> > 2) add support for setting up a sensor to a specific size/framerate. >Murali >> > Karicheri from TI is working on something similar. >> > >> > Using S_FMT to select a particular resolution never felt right, and now >I >> > realize why. Luckily I don't think any of the webcam drivers we have >currently >> > do any scaling, so using S_FMT will still work for those and >applications do >> > not need to be modified. >> > >> > To do the sensor setup in the new-style we can either introduce a new >ioctl >> > to specify the size and use VIDIOC_S_PARM (yuck!) to setup the >framerate, or >> > we use the new video timings ioctl that Murali is working on. >> >> As yet one more example for your collection: I have an configuration with >> a sensor, that has a DSP in it. The sensor itself can perform scaling, >the >> DSP has three (!) resizing algorithms, and the SoC can scale too... >> >> > Data format negotiation >> > ----------------------- >> > >> > Depending on the bus configuration a component supports a list of data >formats. >> > The next step is to somehow coordinate both sides of the bus to select >> > compatible data formats. In many cases you can just go through the >supported >> > data formats and find matches. But this is not true in general. A >generic >> > camera framework like soc-camera either needs an optional mapping table >that >> > is supplied by the board configuration, or it should be given a >callback >> > function that can be implemented at the board level to do the matching >for >> > soc-camera (and if no function is supplied it can fallback to a default >> > matching function). >> > >> > A simple example where matching would fail is if the sensor is sending >on >> > 8 pins and the SoC receives it on 12 pins (with the lowest 4 pins >pulled >> > down). So the data format from the sensor is some 8 bit Bayer format, >while >> > the SoC receives a 12 bit Bayer format. You can try all sorts of fancy >> > heuristics to solve such problems, but in my opinion that will never be >able >> > to fully solve this data format negotiation. In the end the board >designer >> > knows exactly how to match it up, and so it is best to place the >matching code >> > at the level where that information is actually available: the platform >code. >> >> A better example is the one, that I've already mentioned several times: >> the sensor can only send 10 bits, they are connected directly to an SoC, >> that can sample 8, 9, or 10 data lines, but it always samples least >> significant ones. So, in this configuration only 10-bit data would be >> functional. But there's also an i2c multiplexer in between, thatcan >switch >> D9..D2 sensor outputs to D7..D0 SoC inputs, thus letting it also support >> 8-bit data. >> >> So, in this case: >> >> 1. the sensor shall honestly say "I can only send 10-bit data." >> >> 2. the platform callback shall make this to "you can get 8- or 10-bit >data >> from the sensor." >> >> 3. when actually configuring that 8-bit format, the platform code shall >> operate the switch and further issue a call to the sensor to set up the >> 10-bit data format. > >Exactly. Using a callback is probably the most flexible way of doing this. > >> > This type of data format matching works well in simple situations (e.g. >a >> > sensor connected to a SoC), but when you have a network of components >all >> > talking to one another it becomes impossible to manage that in a driver. >> > >> > Using the media controller it should be possible to setup the data >format >> > for a sub-device directly. Obviously, this only makes sense for SoCs. >> > In theory one could also setup the bus configuration that way, but I >feel >> > uncomfortable doing that. This really belongs at the platform level. >> > >> > Note that when dealing with a SoC that e.g. connects a previewer >component >> > to a resizer component internally it is the responsibility of the SoC >driver >> > to select the data formats. This will not come from platform data, >since this >> > is a SoC-internal connection. Whether to allow an application to >explicitly >> > set the data format in this case is something that the SoC driver >developer >> > will have to decide. >> > >> > >> > Pixel formats >> > ------------- >> > >> > Until now we have been talking about data formats. But the end-user >only sees >> > pixel formats. A pixel format defines uniquely how the video will be >formatted >> > in memory. The translation from a data format to memory is generally >done by >> > a DMA engine. A single data format can be DMAed into memory in >potentially >> > several ways, depending on the setup of the DMA engine. >> > >> > In many of our TV and webcam drivers there is only one data format >(usually >> > the default format, and often only format, available by the various >components). >> > >> > So effectively the pixel enumeration maps that single data format to a >set of >> > pixel formats. And selecting a pixel format just changes the DMA engine >and >> > not the internal data format. >> > >> > For a complex device it may become very hard to generate a full list of >all >> > the possible pixel formats supported by all the possible data formats >and DMA >> > engine settings. This can easily explode into an unmanagable list, not >to >> > mention very difficult driver code. And does anyone really care about >200 >> > possible pixel formats? >> > >> > I would suggest that every driver should enumerate the available pixel >formats >> > for the selected data format of the DMA engine. >> >> I use the term "packing algorithm" here, and, I think, it better >describes >> the process of transferring data from the bus to RAM than "data format of >> the DMA engine." The DMA engine does not care what data is on the bus. It >> can be a valid configuration to apply one specific packing algorithm to >> different data formats. > >That's true, but I don't see the relevance to be honest. > >> > Some drivers might have >> > additional information that allows them to extend that to more pixel >formats >> > and setup the data format based on the selected pixel format. For >example, >> > soc-camera might achieve that if the platform code will provide it with >a >> > table that maps pixel formats to data formats (a data format for the >SoC and >> > one for the sensor). >> >> What do you mean by the data format for the SoC? A packing algorithm? > >You typically have this component chain: > >sensor -> SoC -> memory > >So in order to get a certain pixel format you will have to select which >data >format the sensor is sending and which data format the SoC is expecting >(i.e. >a data format that can be packed into memory according to the specified >pixel >format). So with 'data format of the SoC' I mean the data format that the >SoC >sees from the sensor. Which will often, but not always, be identical to >that >used by the sensor. > >> > A full list of pixel formats will typically be more important for >consumer >> > market devices than for SoCs, so it is up to the driver to decide what >is >> > best here. >> > >> > >> > Video nodes supporting input and output >> > --------------------------------------- >> > >> > There is a special case that is currently not implemented, but it will >be >> > in the near future: stand-alone scalers and similar devices. These will >have >> > a single device node that a driver can send data to, then the data is >> > transformed in some way and you get back the result. >> > >> > How to enumerate pixel formats in this case? If you set the input pixel >format >> > to X, then the set of possible pixel formats on the output might be >different >> > compared to input pixel format Y. Ditto if you enumerate input pixel >formats >> > based on a selected output pixel format. >> > >> > In both cases you still want to enumerate all supported formats, but >you also >> > want to know which match the chosen format 'on the other side'. I >propose that >> > we add a new flag to the struct v4l2_fmtdesc flags field: >V4L2_FMT_FLAG_INVALID. >> > >> > This is only set if the enumerated pixel format is not currently valid >compared >> > to the chosen opposite pixel format. In principle this flag is only set >for >> > such input and output video nodes and not for others. >> > >> > >> > Summary >> > ======= >> > >> > Based on this lengthy analysis I propose the following: >> > >> > 1) We add a v4l2-subdev API to setup bus configurations. This >configuration >> > comes from the board specification. >> > >> > 2) Each sub-device will support a list of data formats depending on the >bus >> > configuration. This is stored in the subdev driver. >> > >> > 3) A data format can either be setup explicitly through a media >controller >> > or it is negotiated. You may need to do the matching via a callback to >> > platform code. >> > >> > 4) Restrict VIDIOC_ENUM_FRAMESIZES/INTERVALS to what is available on >the >> > sensor (or video source/sink in general). It should have similar >semantics to >> > VIDIOC_ENUMSTD. >> > >> > 5) We need a new API to setup a sensor directly and not rely on S_FMT >to >> > do that for us since that is ambiguous when there is also a scaler in >the >> > pipeline. A new API to setup digital video timings is being worked on >and >> > can probably be used for this. >> >> You mean a new user-space API (ioctl)? Don't think this is a good idea, I >> would leave it to the drivers, in case only /dev/videoX is used, and to >> the future media controller API. > >We have to. How else can a application tell the sensor what resolution to >use? >S_FMT tells what it should receive, but if there is a scaler in the >pipeline, >then what are you controlling? The sensor or the scaler?
For ip net cam applications, application would require the sensor to capture at a specific fps and resolution similar to S_STD. I think we could use the ioctl I have proposed in my RFC (Posted today morning) for this. Using S_FMT for timing is a kludge way of doing the same thing. > >We need the new ioctls anyway to control digital video timings for HDTV >support. It's being worked on by TI. That same API can hopefully also be >used I have posted this today morning to the linux-media mailing list. >to setup sensors. It's really the missing piece in all this. > >Note that this will obviously not help you if you have multiple scalers in >the pipeline. Then only a media controller will work where you can setup >each >scaler in turn. > >> > 6) All drivers will enumerate those pixel formats supported for the >currently >> > selected data format of the DMA engine. Optionally, some drivers may >extend >> > that to other data formats as well as long as they know how to setup >the board >> > to support the new pixel format. >> > >> > 7) For input/output video nodes the enumerated pixel formats will >include a >> > new flag that tells the application whether the pixel format is invalid >if >> > it does not match the pixel format on the other side. Obviously, the >video >> > node will only work if both pixel formats are valid. >> >> So, you will have to enumerate output formats after each S_FMT for an >> input format and v.v.? > >Yes. I know, not the most efficient approach perhaps, but it's simple and >it >works and it does not require any new ioctls. > >Regards, > > Hans > >-- >Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG Telecom -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
