| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAM_ZknUu5xgp7gZoQJ_5XaX6CBRqYVxNJsZzsgBKGFcnUqKAJw@mail.gmail.com>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists