[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e961f869-9a4c-b68f-6379-1aea277648de@osg.samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:27:42 -0400
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 03/10] [media] vb2: add in-fence support to QBUF
Hello Gustavo,
On 03/13/2017 04:20 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
[snip]
>
> int vb2_qbuf(struct vb2_queue *q, struct v4l2_buffer *b)
> {
> + struct dma_fence *fence = NULL;
> int ret;
>
> if (vb2_fileio_is_active(q)) {
> @@ -565,7 +567,17 @@ int vb2_qbuf(struct vb2_queue *q, struct v4l2_buffer *b)
> }
>
> ret = vb2_queue_or_prepare_buf(q, b, "qbuf");
> - return ret ? ret : vb2_core_qbuf(q, b->index, b);
> +
> + if (b->flags & V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE) {
> + if (b->memory != VB2_MEMORY_DMABUF)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
I wonder if is correct to check this. Only one side of the pipeline uses
V4L2_MEMORY_DMABUF while the other uses V4L2_MEMORY_MMAP + VIDIOC_EXPBUF.
So that means that fences can only be used in one direction?
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
Powered by blists - more mailing lists