[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3815203.kQq0lBPeGt@arisu>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:56:24 -0400
From: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@...labora.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>
Cc: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>, Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>,
Andy Yan <andy.yan@...k-chips.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>,
Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@...tlin.com>,
Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas.dufresne@...labora.com>,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...labora.com>,
Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] media: rockchip: Introduce the rkvdec2 driver
Hi Alex,
On Sunday, June 23, 2024 5:33:28 A.M. EDT you wrote:
> Hi Detlev,
>
> Am 20.06.24 um 16:19 schrieb Detlev Casanova:
> > This driver supports the second generation of the Rockchip Video
> > decoder, also known as vdpu34x.
> > It is currently only used on the RK3588(s) SoC.
> >
> > There are 2 decoders on the RK3588 SoC that can work in pair to decode
> > 8K video at 30 FPS but currently, only using one core at a time is
> > supported.
> >
> > Scheduling requests between the two cores will be implemented later.
> >
> > The core supports H264, HEVC, VP9 and AVS2 decoding but this driver
> > currently only supports H264.
> >
> > The driver is based on rkvdec and they may share some code in the
> > future.
> > The decision to make a different driver is mainly because rkvdec2 has
> > more features and can work with multiple cores.
> >
> > The registers are mapped in a struct in RAM using bitfields. It is IO
> > copied to the HW when all values are configured.
> > The decision to use such a struct instead of writing buffers one by one
> >
> > is based on the following reasons:
> > - Rockchip cores are known to misbehave when registers are not written
> >
> > in address order,
> >
> > - Those cores also need the software to write all registers, even if
> >
> > they are written their default values or are not related to the task
> > (this core will not start decoding some H264 frames if some VP9
> > registers are not written to 0)
> >
> > - In the future, to support multiple cores, the scheduler could be
> >
> > optimized by storing the precomputed registers values and copy them
> > to the HW as soos as a core becomes available.
> >
> > This makes the code more readable and may bring performance improvements
> > in future features.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@...labora.com>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/staging/media/Kconfig | 1 +
> > drivers/staging/media/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/Kconfig | 15 +
> > drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/Makefile | 3 +
> > drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/TODO | 9 +
> > drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/rkvdec2-h264.c | 739 +++++++++++
> > drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/rkvdec2-regs.h | 345 +++++
> > drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/rkvdec2.c | 1253 ++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/rkvdec2.h | 130 ++
> > 9 files changed, 2496 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/Kconfig
> > create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/Makefile
> > create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/TODO
> > create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/rkvdec2-h264.c
> > create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/rkvdec2-regs.h
> > create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/rkvdec2.c
> > create mode 100644 drivers/staging/media/rkvdec2/rkvdec2.h
>
> ...
>
> > +static inline void rkvdec2_memcpy_toio(void __iomem *dst, void *src,
> > size_t len) +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
> > + __iowrite32_copy(dst, src, len);
> > +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARM)
>
> I guess that can get an "#else" since memcpy_toio exists for all archs.
>
> > + memcpy_toio(dst, src, len);
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
>
> ...
>
> > + /* Set timeout threshold */
> > + if (pixels < RKVDEC2_1080P_PIXELS)
> > + regs->common.timeout_threshold = RKVDEC2_TIMEOUT_1080p;
> > + else if (pixels < RKVDEC2_4K_PIXELS)
> > + regs->common.timeout_threshold = RKVDEC2_TIMEOUT_4K;
> > + else if (pixels < RKVDEC2_8K_PIXELS)
> > + regs->common.timeout_threshold = RKVDEC2_TIMEOUT_8K;
> > +
>
> Did you test if it works with anything > 8K? If so, you propably want to
> make the check above
>
> + else
> + regs->common.timeout_threshold = RKVDEC2_TIMEOUT_8K;
>
> Otherwise the timeout may not be set/contain invalid values from any former
> stream.
That's right, but it would be set to 0 because of the memset.
RKVDEC2_TIMEOUT_8K might not be enough for bigger frame sizes, so I'll set it
to the maximum value (0xffffffff) when frames are bigger than 8K and also adapt
the watchdog time: RKVDEC2_TIMEOUT_8K is around 100 ms, but 0xffffffff is arnoud
5.3 seconds (reg032/axi_clock_freq)
I'll do more tests with this as well.
> ...
>
> > +
> > +static const struct rkvdec2_coded_fmt_desc rkvdec2_coded_fmts[] = {
> > + {
> > + .fourcc = V4L2_PIX_FMT_H264_SLICE,
> > + .frmsize = {
> > + .min_width = 16,
> > + .max_width = 65520,
> > + .step_width = 16,
> > + .min_height = 16,
> > + .max_height = 65520,
> > + .step_height = 16,
> > + },
> > + .ctrls = &rkvdec2_h264_ctrls,
> > + .ops = &rkvdec2_h264_fmt_ops,
> > + .num_decoded_fmts =
ARRAY_SIZE(rkvdec2_h264_decoded_fmts),
> > + .decoded_fmts = rkvdec2_h264_decoded_fmts,
> > + .subsystem_flags =
VB2_V4L2_FL_SUPPORTS_M2M_HOLD_CAPTURE_BUF,
> > + },
> > +};
> > +
>
> Note, that this is also given to userspace (VIDIOC_ENUM_FRAMESIZES) and
> this is already incorrect in the old rkvdec driver (and hantro): From
> userspace perspective we do not have a restriction in
> step_width/step_width, as we are aligning any given width/height to HW
> requirements in the driver - what we should give to userspace is
> fsize->type = V4L2_FRMSIZE_TYPE_CONTINUOUS; fsize->stepwise.min_height =
> 1; fsize->stepwise.min_width = 1; fsize->stepwise.max_height = 65520;
> fsize->stepwise.max_width = 65520;
Is fsize->stepwise.min_height = 1; and fsize->stepwise.min_width = 1 correct ?
Or do you mean fsize->stepwise.step_height = 1; and fsize->stepwise.setp_width
= 1 ?
It would give this instead:
.frmsize = {
.min_width = 16,
.max_width = 65520,
.step_width = 1,
.min_height = 16,
.max_height = 65520,
.step_height = 1,
},
and .vidioc_enum_framesizes sets fsize->type = V4L2_FRMSIZE_TYPE_CONTINUOUS;
> I guess this new driver should be an
> opportunity to fix that and distinguish between internal and external
> frame size requirements and the .vidioc_enum_framesizes callback should
> adapted accordingly. Regards, Alex
Detlev.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists