linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] solo6x10: just pass frame motion flag from hardware, drop additional handling as complicated and unstable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:08:26 +0200
From:	Andrey Utkin <andrey.utkin@...p.bluecherry.net>
To:	Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Media <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
	m.chehab@...sung.com, "hans.verkuil" <hans.verkuil@...co.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] solo6x10: just pass frame motion flag from hardware, drop
 additional handling as complicated and unstable

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> FYI: I need to test this myself and understand it better, so it will take some
> time before I get to this. It is in my TODO list, so it won't be forgotten.
>
> Regards,
>
>         Hans
>
> On 11/05/2014 09:11 PM, Andrey Utkin wrote:
>> Dropping code (introduced in 316d9e84a72069e04e483de0d5934c1d75f6a44c)
>> which intends to make raising of motion events more "smooth"(?).
>>
>> It made motion event never appear in my installation.
>> That code is complicated, so I couldn't figure out quickly how to fix
>> it, so dropping it seems better to me.
>>
>> Another justification is that anyway application would implement
>> "motion signal stabilization" if required, it is not necessarily kernel
>> driver's job.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Utkin <andrey.utkin@...p.bluecherry.net>
>> ---
>>  drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c | 30 +-------------------------
>>  drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10.h          |  2 --
>>  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c
>> index 30e09d9..866f7b3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c
>> @@ -239,8 +239,6 @@ static int solo_enc_on(struct solo_enc_dev *solo_enc)
>>       if (solo_enc->bw_weight > solo_dev->enc_bw_remain)
>>               return -EBUSY;
>>       solo_enc->sequence = 0;
>> -     solo_enc->motion_last_state = false;
>> -     solo_enc->frames_since_last_motion = 0;
>>       solo_dev->enc_bw_remain -= solo_enc->bw_weight;
>>
>>       if (solo_enc->type == SOLO_ENC_TYPE_EXT)
>> @@ -555,36 +553,12 @@ static int solo_enc_fillbuf(struct solo_enc_dev *solo_enc,
>>       }
>>
>>       if (!ret) {
>> -             bool send_event = false;
>> -
>>               vb->v4l2_buf.sequence = solo_enc->sequence++;
>>               vb->v4l2_buf.timestamp.tv_sec = vop_sec(vh);
>>               vb->v4l2_buf.timestamp.tv_usec = vop_usec(vh);
>>
>>               /* Check for motion flags */
>> -             if (solo_is_motion_on(solo_enc)) {
>> -                     /* It takes a few frames for the hardware to detect
>> -                      * motion. Once it does it clears the motion detection
>> -                      * register and it takes again a few frames before
>> -                      * motion is seen. This means in practice that when the
>> -                      * motion field is 1, it will go back to 0 for the next
>> -                      * frame. This leads to motion detection event being
>> -                      * sent all the time, which is not what we want.
>> -                      * Instead wait a few frames before deciding that the
>> -                      * motion has halted. After some experimentation it
>> -                      * turns out that waiting for 5 frames works well.
>> -                      */
>> -                     if (enc_buf->motion == 0 &&
>> -                         solo_enc->motion_last_state &&
>> -                         solo_enc->frames_since_last_motion++ > 5)
>> -                             send_event = true;
>> -                     else if (enc_buf->motion) {
>> -                             solo_enc->frames_since_last_motion = 0;
>> -                             send_event = !solo_enc->motion_last_state;
>> -                     }
>> -             }
>> -
>> -             if (send_event) {
>> +             if (solo_is_motion_on(solo_enc) && enc_buf->motion) {
>>                       struct v4l2_event ev = {
>>                               .type = V4L2_EVENT_MOTION_DET,
>>                               .u.motion_det = {
>> @@ -594,8 +568,6 @@ static int solo_enc_fillbuf(struct solo_enc_dev *solo_enc,
>>                               },
>>                       };
>>
>> -                     solo_enc->motion_last_state = enc_buf->motion;
>> -                     solo_enc->frames_since_last_motion = 0;
>>                       v4l2_event_queue(solo_enc->vfd, &ev);
>>               }
>>       }
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10.h b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10.h
>> index 72017b7..dc503fd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10.h
>> +++ b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10.h
>> @@ -159,8 +159,6 @@ struct solo_enc_dev {
>>       u16                     motion_thresh;
>>       bool                    motion_global;
>>       bool                    motion_enabled;
>> -     bool                    motion_last_state;
>> -     u8                      frames_since_last_motion;
>>       u16                     width;
>>       u16                     height;
>>
>>
>

Hi Hans, how is it proceeding with the subject of this patch?

-- 
Bluecherry developer.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/