On Tuesday 17 May 2011 07:52:28 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > Hi Sakari
>
> Hi Guennadi,
>
> [clip]
>
> >>>> bool valid_prio = true;
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/videodev2.h b/include/linux/videodev2.h
> >>>> index aa6c393..b6ef46e 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/linux/videodev2.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/videodev2.h
> >>>> @@ -1847,6 +1847,26 @@ struct v4l2_dbg_chip_ident {
> >>>>
> >>>> __u32 revision; /* chip revision, chip specific */
> >>>>
> >>>> } __attribute__ ((packed));
> >>>>
> >>>> +/* VIDIOC_DESTROY_BUFS */
> >>>> +struct v4l2_buffer_span {
> >>>> + __u32 index; /* output: buffers
> >>>> index...index + count - 1 have
> >>>> been created */ + __u32 count;
> >>>> + __u32 reserved[2];
> >>>> +};
> >>>> +
> >>>> +/* struct v4l2_createbuffers::flags */
> >>>> +#define V4L2_BUFFER_FLAG_NO_CACHE_INVALIDATE (1 << 0)
> >>>
> >>> 1. An additional flag FLAG_NO_CACHE_FLUSH is needed for output devices.
> >>
> >> Should this be called FLAG_NO_CACHE_CLEAN?
> >>
> >> Invalidate == Make contents of the cache invalid
> >>
> >> Clean == Make sure no dirty stuff resides in the cache
> >
> > and mark it clean?...
> >
> >> Flush == invalidate + clean
> >
> > Maybe you meant "first clean, then invalidate?"
> >
> > In principle, I think, yes, CLEAN would define it more strictly.
>
> Yes; I'd prefer that. :-)
>
> >> It occurred to me to wonder if two flags are needed for this, but I
> >> think the answer is yes, since there can be memory-to-memory devices
> >> which are both OUTPUT and CAPTURE.
> >>
> >>> 2. Both these flags should not be passed with CREATE, but with SUBMIT
> >>> (which will be renamed to PREPARE or something similar). It should be
> >>> possible to prepare the same buffer with different cacheing attributes
> >>> during a running operation. Shall these flags be added to values, taken
> >>> by struct v4l2_buffer::flags, since that is the struct, that will be
> >>> used as the argument for the new version of the SUBMIT ioctl()?
> >>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +/* VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS */
> >>>> +struct v4l2_create_buffers {
> >>>> + __u32 index; /* output: buffers
> >>>> index...index + count - 1
have
> >>>> been created */ + __u32 count;
> >>>> + __u32 flags; /* V4L2_BUFFER_FLAG_* */
> >>>> + enum v4l2_memory memory;
> >>>> + __u32 size; /* Explicit size, e.g.,
> >>>> for compressed streams
*/
> >>>> + struct v4l2_format format; /* "type" is used
> >>>> always, the rest
if
> >>>> size == 0 */ +};
> >>>
> >>> 1. Care must be taken to keep index <= V4L2_MAX_FRAME
> >>
> >> This will make allocating new ranges of buffers impossible if the
> >> existing buffer indices are scattered within the range.
> >>
> >> What about making it possible to pass an array of buffer indices to the
> >> user, just like VIDIOC_S_EXT_CTRLS does? I'm not sure if this would be
> >> perfect, but it would avoid the problem of requiring continuous ranges
> >> of buffer ids.
> >>
> >> struct v4l2_create_buffers {
> >>
> >> __u32 *index;
> >> __u32 count;
> >> __u32 flags;
> >> enum v4l2_memory memory;
> >> __u32 size;
> >> struct v4l2_format format;
> >>
> >> };
> >>
> >> Index would be a pointer to an array of buffer indices and its length
> >> would be count.
> >
> > I don't understand this. We do _not_ want to allow holes in indices. For
> > now we decide to not implement DESTROY at all. In this case indices just
> > increment contiguously.
> >
> > The next stage is to implement DESTROY, but only in strict reverse order
> > - without holes and in the same ranges, as buffers have been CREATEd
> > before. So, I really don't understand why we need arrays, sorry.
>
> Well, now that we're defining a second interface to make new buffer
> objects, I just thought it should be made as future-proof as we can.
I second that. I don't like rushing new APIs to find out we need something
else after 6 months.
> But even with single index, it's always possible to issue the ioctl more
> than once and achieve the same result as if there was an array of indices.
>
> What would be the reason to disallow creating holes to index range? I
> don't see much reason from application or implementation point of view,
> as we're even being limited to such low numbers.
>
> Speaking of which; perhaps I'm bringing this up rather late, but should
> we define the API to allow larger numbers than VIDEO_MAX_FRAME? 32 isn't
> all that much after all --- this might become a limiting factor later on
> when there are devices with huge amounts of memory.
>
> Allowing CREATE_BUF to do that right now would be possible since
> applications using it are new users and can be expected to be using it
> properly. :-)
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
