linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] media: stm32-dcmipp: STM32 DCMIPP camera interface driver

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, 24 Aug 2023 12:26:42 +0000
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Hugues Fruchet <hugues.fruchet@...s.st.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        Philippe CORNU <philippe.cornu@...s.st.com>,
        Dan Scally <dan.scally@...asonboard.com>,
        laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] media: stm32-dcmipp: STM32 DCMIPP camera
 interface driver

Hi Alanin,

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 01:09:34PM +0200, Alain Volmat wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
> 
> thanks a lot for the review.  I've already taken care of the comments I got
> from Dan and will also add fixes for your comments as well before
> pushing the v2.  Before going into that I thought I'd better clarify the
> framerate part which seems the most tricky part.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 09:29:55AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:

...

> > > +static int dcmipp_byteproc_g_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > > +					    struct v4l2_subdev_frame_interval *fi)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct dcmipp_byteproc_device *byteproc = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
> > > +
> > > +	if (IS_SINK(fi->pad))
> > > +		fi->interval = byteproc->sink_interval;
> > > +	else
> > > +		fi->interval = byteproc->src_interval;
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int dcmipp_byteproc_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > > +					    struct v4l2_subdev_frame_interval *fi)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct dcmipp_byteproc_device *byteproc = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_lock(&byteproc->lock);
> > > +
> > > +	if (byteproc->streaming) {
> > > +		mutex_unlock(&byteproc->lock);
> > > +		return -EBUSY;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	if (fi->interval.numerator == 0 || fi->interval.denominator == 0)
> > > +		fi->interval = byteproc->sink_interval;
> > > +
> > > +	if (IS_SINK(fi->pad)) {
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * Setting sink frame interval resets frame skipping.
> > > +		 * Sink frame interval is propagated to src.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		byteproc->frate = 0;
> > > +		byteproc->sink_interval = fi->interval;
> > > +		byteproc->src_interval = byteproc->sink_interval;
> > 
> > Is this used for anything else than configure skipping?
> > 
> > I think I'd just have a control for it in that case.
> > 
> > I don't think exposing frame interval configuration is necessarily even
> > meaningful for a device that just processes data but does not produce it.
> 
> The DCMIPP is able to perform frame drop, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 basically.
> As Dan pointed me out, indeed setting frame interval as we did on both
> sink and source pad isn't a defined behavior.  I first thought that
> using the frame interval was the proper way to do that but that is
> indeed only used on producers such as sensors ....
> Which ctrl would you propose in such case ?

We don't have one, AFAIK, and I think it may be unlikely this will be
needed elsewhere. So I'd use a private control.

I wonder what others think. Cc Laurent as well.

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus