[PATCH v13 5/8] media: chips-media: wave5: Add the v4l2 layer

[Sebastian Fricke]

Hey Hans,

On 16.10.2023 13:57, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>Hi Sebastian,
>
>On 12/10/2023 13:01, Sebastian Fricke wrote:
>> Add the decoder and encoder implementing the v4l2
>> API. This patch also adds the Makefile and the VIDEO_WAVE_VPU config
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Fricke <sebastian.fricke at collabora.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas.dufresne at collabora.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Deborah Brouwer <deborah.brouwer at collabora.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert Beckett <bob.beckett at collabora.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dafna Hirschfeld <dafna.hirschfeld at collabora.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Nas Chung <nas.chung at chipsnmedia.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/media/platform/chips-media/Kconfig         |    1 +
>>  drivers/media/platform/chips-media/Makefile        |    1 +
>>  drivers/media/platform/chips-media/wave5/Kconfig   |   12 +
>>  drivers/media/platform/chips-media/wave5/Makefile  |   10 +
>>  .../platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-helper.c      |  213 +++
>>  .../platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-helper.h      |   31 +
>>  .../platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu-dec.c     | 1953 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>  .../platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu-enc.c     | 1794 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  .../media/platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu.c   |  291 +++
>>  .../media/platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpu.h   |   83 +
>>  .../platform/chips-media/wave5/wave5-vpuapi.h      |    2 -
>>  11 files changed, 4389 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> +static int wave5_vpu_dec_create_bufs(struct file *file, void *priv,
>> +				     struct v4l2_create_buffers *create)
>> +{
>> +	struct vpu_instance *inst = wave5_to_vpu_inst(priv);
>> +	struct v4l2_format *f = &create->format;
>> +
>> +	/* Firmware does not support CREATE_BUFS for CAPTURE queues. */
>> +	if (f->type == V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE_MPLANE) {
>> +		dev_dbg(inst->dev->dev,
>> +			"%s: VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS not supported on CAPTURE queues.\n",
>> +			__func__);
>> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return v4l2_m2m_ioctl_create_bufs(file, priv, create);
>> +}
>
>Regarding the EOPNOTSUPP discussion: I discussed this some more with
>Nicolas on irc, and we wonder if it isn't better to just drop create_bufs
>support for the wave5 decoder altogether. Is there any point in supporting
>it for OUTPUT but not CAPTURE?
>
><snip>
>
>> +static const struct v4l2_ioctl_ops wave5_vpu_dec_ioctl_ops = {
>> +	.vidioc_querycap = wave5_vpu_dec_querycap,
>> +	.vidioc_enum_framesizes = wave5_vpu_dec_enum_framesizes,
>> +
>> +	.vidioc_enum_fmt_vid_cap	= wave5_vpu_dec_enum_fmt_cap,
>> +	.vidioc_s_fmt_vid_cap_mplane = wave5_vpu_dec_s_fmt_cap,
>> +	.vidioc_g_fmt_vid_cap_mplane = wave5_vpu_dec_g_fmt_cap,
>> +	.vidioc_try_fmt_vid_cap_mplane = wave5_vpu_dec_try_fmt_cap,
>> +
>> +	.vidioc_enum_fmt_vid_out	= wave5_vpu_dec_enum_fmt_out,
>> +	.vidioc_s_fmt_vid_out_mplane = wave5_vpu_dec_s_fmt_out,
>> +	.vidioc_g_fmt_vid_out_mplane = wave5_vpu_g_fmt_out,
>> +	.vidioc_try_fmt_vid_out_mplane = wave5_vpu_dec_try_fmt_out,
>> +
>> +	.vidioc_g_selection = wave5_vpu_dec_g_selection,
>> +	.vidioc_s_selection = wave5_vpu_dec_s_selection,
>> +
>> +	.vidioc_reqbufs = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_reqbufs,
>> +	.vidioc_querybuf = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_querybuf,
>> +	.vidioc_create_bufs = wave5_vpu_dec_create_bufs,
>
>So this would just be dropped.
>
>> +	.vidioc_prepare_buf = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_prepare_buf,
>> +	.vidioc_qbuf = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_qbuf,
>> +	.vidioc_expbuf = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_expbuf,
>> +	.vidioc_dqbuf = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_dqbuf,
>> +	.vidioc_streamon = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_streamon,
>> +	.vidioc_streamoff = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_streamoff,
>> +
>> +	.vidioc_try_decoder_cmd = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_try_decoder_cmd,
>> +	.vidioc_decoder_cmd = wave5_vpu_dec_decoder_cmd,
>> +
>> +	.vidioc_subscribe_event = wave5_vpu_subscribe_event,
>> +	.vidioc_unsubscribe_event = v4l2_event_unsubscribe,
>> +};
>
>This also means there is no need to document the new EOPNOTSUPP error
>code in VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS, or to modify v4l2-compliance.
>
>You *do* need to add a comment somewhere explaining why you don't
>support this ioctl. I think it would be best to do that right after
>'.vidioc_reqbufs = v4l2_m2m_ioctl_reqbufs,'.

So, besides this issue would you judge the v4l2 layer of the driver to
be ready? Do you want a reviewed by tag for it or would you take it like
this as well?

>
>Regards,
>
>	Hans

Sincerly,
Sebastian
>_______________________________________________
>Kernel mailing list -- kernel at mailman.collabora.com
>To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave at mailman.collabora.com