[PATCH v5 00/39] i.MX Media Driver
hverkuil at xs4all.nl
Mon Mar 20 08:57:54 PDT 2017
On 03/20/2017 03:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 02:57:03PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> On 03/20/2017 02:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> It's what I have - remember, not everyone is happy to constantly replace
>>> their distro packages with random new stuff.
>> This is a compliance test, which is continuously developed in tandem with
>> new kernel versions. If you are working with an upstream kernel, then you
>> should also use the corresponding v4l2-compliance test. What's the point
>> of using an old one?
>> I will not support driver developers that use an old version of the
>> compliance test, that's a waste of my time.
> The reason that people may _not_ wish to constantly update v4l-utils
> is that it changes the libraries installed on their systems.
> So, the solution to that is not to complain about developers not using
> the latest version, but instead to de-couple it from the rest of the
> package, and provide it as a separate, stand-alone package that doesn't
> come with all the extra baggage.
> Now, there's two possible answers to that:
> 1. it depends on the libv4l2 version. If that's so, then you are
> insisting that people constantly move to the latest libv4l2 because
> of API changes, and those API changes may upset applications they're
> using. So this isn't really on.
> 2. it doesn't depend on libv4l2 version, in which case there's no reason
> for it to be packaged with v4l-utils.
Run configure with --disable-v4l2-compliance-libv4l.
This avoids linking with libv4l and allows you to build it stand-alone.
Perhaps I should invert this option since in most cases you don't want to
run v4l2-compliance with libv4l (it's off by default unless you pass the
-w option to v4l2-compliance).
> The reality is that v4l2-compliance links with libv4l2, so I'm not sure
> which it is. What I am sure of is that I don't want to upgrade libv4l2
> on an ad-hoc basis, potentially causing issues with applications.
>>>> To test actual streaming you need to provide the -s option.
>>>> Note: v4l2-compliance has been developed for 'regular' video devices,
>>>> not MC devices. It may or may not work with the -s option.
>>> Right, and it exists to verify that the establised v4l2 API is correctly
>>> implemented. If the v4l2 API is being offered to user applications,
>>> then it must be conformant, otherwise it's not offering the v4l2 API.
>>> (That's very much a definition statement in itself.)
>>> So, are we really going to say MC devices do not offer the v4l2 API to
>>> userspace, but something that might work? We've already seen today
>>> one user say that they're not going to use mainline because of the
>>> crud surrounding MC.
>> Actually, my understanding was that he was stuck on the old kernel code.
> Err, sorry, I really don't follow. Who is "he"?
"one user say that they're not going to use mainline because of the
crud surrounding MC."
> _I_ was the one who reported the EXPBUF problem. Your comment makes no
>> In the case of v4l2-compliance, I never had the time to make it work with
>> MC devices. Same for that matter of certain memory to memory devices.
>> Just like MC devices these too behave differently. They are partially
>> supported in v4l2-compliance, but not fully.
> It seems you saying that the API provided by /dev/video* for a MC device
> breaks the v4l2-compliance tests?
There may be tests in the compliance suite that do not apply for MC devices
and for which I never check. The compliance suite was never written with MC
devices in mind, and it certainly hasn't been tested much with such devices.
It's only very recent that I even got hardware that has MC support...
>From what I can tell from the feedback I got it seems to be OKish, but I
just can't guarantee that the compliance utility is correct for such devices.
In particular I doubt the streaming tests (-s, -f, etc.) will work. The -s
test *might* work if the pipeline is configured correctly before running
v4l2-compliance. I can't imagine that the -f option would work at all since
I would expect pipeline validation errors.
I've been gently pushing Helen Koike to finish her virtual MC driver
(https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9312783/) since having a virtual driver
makes writing compliance tests much easier.
> _No one_ has mentioned using v4l2-compliance on the subdevs.
>> Complaining about this really won't help. We know it's a problem and unless
>> someone (me perhaps?) manages to get paid to work on this it's unlikely to
>> change for now.
> Like the above comment, your comment makes no sense. I'm not complaining,
> I'm trying to find out the details.
Must be me then, it did feel like complaining...
> Yes, MC stuff sucks big time right now, the documentation is poor, there's
> a lack of understanding on all sides of the issues (which can be seen by
> the different opinions that people hold.) The only way to resolve these
> differences is via discussion, and if you're going to start thinking that
> everyone is complaining, then there's not going to be any forward progress.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel