Message-ID: <20170320120638.09ba5621@vento.lan>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:06:38 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
        Steve Longerbeam <slongerbeam@...il.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, shawnguo@...nel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        fabio.estevam@....com, mchehab@...nel.org, nick@...anahar.org,
        markus.heiser@...marIT.de,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com, bparrot@...com,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org, arnd@...db.de, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        minghsiu.tsai@...iatek.com, tiffany.lin@...iatek.com,
        jean-christophe.trotin@...com, horms+renesas@...ge.net.au,
        niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se, robert.jarzmik@...e.fr,
        songjun.wu@...rochip.com, andrew-ct.chen@...iatek.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, pavel@....cz,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Steve Longerbeam <steve_longerbeam@...tor.com>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/36] [media] v4l2-mc: add a function to inherit
 controls from a pipeline

Em Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:10:30 +0100
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl> escreveu:

> On 03/17/2017 03:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 02:51:10PM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:  
> >> On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 10:24 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> [...]  
> >>> The big question, waiting for an answer on the last 8 years is
> >>> who would do that? Such person would need to have several different
> >>> hardware from different vendors, in order to ensure that it has
> >>> a generic solution.
> >>>
> >>> It is a way more feasible that the Kernel developers that already 
> >>> have a certain hardware on their hands to add support inside the
> >>> driver to forward the controls through the pipeline and to setup
> >>> a "default" pipeline that would cover the common use cases at
> >>> driver's probe.  
> >>
> >> Actually, would setting pipeline via libv4l2 plugin and letting drivers
> >> provide a sane enabled default pipeline configuration be mutually
> >> exclusive? Not sure about the control forwarding, but at least a simple
> >> link setup and format forwarding would also be possible in the kernel
> >> without hindering userspace from doing it themselves later.  
> > 
> > I think this is the exact same problem as controls in ALSA.
> > 
> > When ALSA started off in life, the requirement was that all controls
> > shall default to minimum, and the user is expected to adjust controls
> > after the system is running.
> > 
> > After OSS, this gave quite a marked change in system behaviour, and
> > led to a lot of "why doesn't my sound work anymore" problems, because
> > people then had to figure out which combination of controls had to be
> > set to get sound out of their systems.
> > 
> > Now it seems to be much better, where install Linux on a platform, and
> > you have a working sound system (assuming that the drivers are all there
> > which is generally the case for x86.)
> > 
> > However, it's still possible to adjust all the controls from userspace.
> > All that's changed is the defaults.
> > 
> > Why am I mentioning this - because from what I understand Mauro saying,
> > it's no different from this situation.  Userspace will still have the
> > power to disable all links and setup its own.  The difference is that
> > there will be a default configuration that the kernel sets up at boot
> > time that will be functional, rather than the current default
> > configuration where the system is completely non-functional until
> > manually configured.
> > 
> > However, at the end of the day, I don't care _where_ the usability
> > problems are solved, only that there is some kind of solution.  It's not
> > the _where_ that's the real issue here, but the _how_, and discussion of
> > the _how_ is completely missing.
> > 
> > So, let's try kicking off a discussion about _how_ to do things.
> > 
> > _How_ do we setup a media controller system so that we end up with a
> > usable configuration - let's start with the obvious bit... which links
> > should be enabled.
> > 
> > I think the first pre-requisit is that we stop exposing capture devices
> > that can never be functional for the hardware that's present on the board,
> > so that there isn't this plentora of useless /dev/video* nodes and useless
> > subdevices.
> > 
> > One possible solution to finding a default path may be "find the shortest
> > path between the capture device and the sensor and enable intervening
> > links".
> > 
> > Then we need to try configuring that path with format/resolution
> > information.
> > 
> > However, what if something in the shortest path can't handle the format
> > that the sensor produces?  I think at that point, we'd need to drop that
> > subdev out of the path resolution, re-run the "find the shortest path"
> > algorithm, and try again.
> > 
> > Repeat until success or no path between the capture and sensor exists.
> > 
> > This works fine if you have just one sensor visible from a capture device,
> > but not if there's more than one (which I suspect is the case with the
> > Sabrelite board with its two cameras and video receiver.)  That breaks
> > the "find the shortest path" algorithm.
> > 
> > So, maybe it's a lot better to just let the board people provide via DT
> > a default setup for the connectivity of the modules somehow - certainly
> > one big step forward would be to disable in DT parts of the capture
> > system that can never be used (remembering that boards like the RPi /
> > Hummingboard may end up using DT overlays to describe this for different
> > cameras, so the capture setup may change after initial boot.)  
> 
> The MC was developed before the device tree came along. But now that the DT
> is here, I think this could be a sensible idea to let the DT provide an
> initial path.
> 
> Sakari, Laurent, Mauro: any opinions?

It makes perfect sense to me.

By setting the pipeline via DT on boards with simple configurations,
e. g. just one CSI physical interface, it can create just one
devnode (e. g. /dev/video0) with would fully control the device,
without enabling subdev API for such hardware, making the hardware
usable with all V4L2 applications.

Regards,
Mauro

Powered by blists - more mailing lists