Message-ID: <CANiDSCtDQ9Wg57YzVAJ1o5WQRmy1QPW8td8V2Scc08MmWtOwFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 08:04:18 +0100
From:   Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
To:     Esker Wong <esker@...gle.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     nicolas@...fresne.ca, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>,
        Esker Wong <esker@...omium.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] media: uvcvideo: Implement V4L2_EVENT_FRAME_SYNC

Hi Esker

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 at 07:54, Esker Wong <esker@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Nicholas and Sakari,
>
> We need it as precise as possible. Currently the earliest time of a
> frame we can have in userspace  is the dqbuf.
>
> And for UVC timestamp, it is somewhat awkward for us to use. Since
> other functions in our stacks do not necessarily contain such
> timestamps. So we want some event to be trigger and we can get the
> system time directly.

Not to mention that the UVC timestamping requires a bit of love.

@Laurent Pinchart, @Kieran Bingham  any progress reviewing :P :
https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/list/?series=10083



>
> If the V4L2_EVENT_FRAME_SYNC will be earlier then V4L2_EVENT_VSYNC,
> then it has value. We would want to know the delay of a frame being
> captured to the time it is displayed.
>
> I'm not sure for bulk is the V4L2_EVENT_VSYNC more accurate?

 V4L2_EVENT_VSYNC wont be more accurate than V4L2_EVENT_FRAME_SYNC.

My understanding is that Sakari thinks that the description of
V4L2_EVENT_FRAME_SYNC
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.9/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-dqevent.html#description
 does not match the current implementation, and suggests using
V4L2_EVENT_VSYNC instead.


>
> Esker
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:27 AM <nicolas@...fresne.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Le mardi 07 novembre 2023 à 13:06 +0800, Esker Wong a écrit :
> > > [send again in text mode]
> > > Hi Sakari,
> > >
> > > Sequence number is important to us. We need it to measure the latency
> > > from this event to the time we display the frame.
> >
> > how much precision do you expect, because as described, this number
> > will be completely false for bulk.
> >
> > Aren't UVC timestamp support to allow measuring latency properly ?
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Esker
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 7:06 PM Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ricardo,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 10:52:27AM +0000, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > > > > Add support for the frame_sync event, so user-space can become aware
> > > > > earlier of new frames.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggested-by: Esker Wong <esker@...omium.org>
> > > > > Tested-by: Esker Wong <esker@...omium.org>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > We have measured a latency of around 30msecs between frame sync
> > > > > and dqbuf.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > - Suggested by Laurent. Split sequence++ and event init.
> > > > > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231020-uvc-event-v1-1-3baa0e9f6952@chromium.org
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c  | 2 ++
> > > > >  drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_video.c | 7 +++++++
> > > > >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c
> > > > > index f4988f03640a..9f3fb5fd2375 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c
> > > > > @@ -1352,6 +1352,8 @@ static int uvc_ioctl_subscribe_event(struct v4l2_fh *fh,
> > > > >       switch (sub->type) {
> > > > >       case V4L2_EVENT_CTRL:
> > > > >               return v4l2_event_subscribe(fh, sub, 0, &uvc_ctrl_sub_ev_ops);
> > > > > +     case V4L2_EVENT_FRAME_SYNC:
> > > > > +             return v4l2_event_subscribe(fh, sub, 0, NULL);
> > > > >       default:
> > > > >               return -EINVAL;
> > > > >       }
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_video.c b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_video.c
> > > > > index 28dde08ec6c5..4f3a510ca4fe 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_video.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_video.c
> > > > > @@ -1073,9 +1073,16 @@ static int uvc_video_decode_start(struct uvc_streaming *stream,
> > > > >        * that discontinuous sequence numbers always indicate lost frames.
> > > > >        */
> > > > >       if (stream->last_fid != fid) {
> > > > > +             struct v4l2_event event = {
> > > > > +                     .type = V4L2_EVENT_FRAME_SYNC,
> > > > > +             };
> > > > > +
> > > > >               stream->sequence++;
> > > > >               if (stream->sequence)
> > > > >                       uvc_video_stats_update(stream);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +             event.u.frame_sync.frame_sequence = stream->sequence,
> > > > > +             v4l2_event_queue(&stream->vdev, &event);
> > > >
> > > > uvc_video_decode_start() is called when the reception of the entire frame
> > > > has been completed. However, the documentation for V4L2_EVENT_FRAME_SYNC
> > > > says that the event is "Triggered immediately when the reception of a frame
> > > > has begun.". The functionality here doesn't seem to fit to this patch.
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't V4L2_EVENT_VSYNC be a better fit, even if we don't really have a
> > > > concept of vertical sync in the case of USB? That event doesn't have the
> > > > sequence though but I guess it's not an issue at least if your case.
> > > >
> > > > Another technically correct option could be to create a new event for this
> > > > but I'm not sure it's worth it.
> > > >
> > > > >       }
> > > > >
> > > > >       uvc_video_clock_decode(stream, buf, data, len);
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Sakari Ailus
> >



-- 
Ricardo Ribalda

Powered by blists - more mailing lists