media-workshop December 2012

media-workshop@linuxtv.org

4 participants
2 discussions

Barcelona Media Summit Report
by Hans Verkuil 29 Dec '12

29 Dec '12

Hi all, This is the report of the Barcelona Media Summit on November 8. For those who were in attendence: please correct any mistakes I may have made. My presentation for the 'Minimum Requirements for New Drivers' and the 'V4L2 Ambiguities' can be found here: http://hverkuil.home.xs4all.nl/presentations/ambiguities2.odp I'd appreciate it if other presentations shown during the meeting can be made available as well. Enjoy! Hans Merging Process =============== The morning was spent discussing the merging process. Basically the number of patch submissions increased from 200 a month two years ago to 700 a month this year. Mauro is unable to keep up with that flood and a solution needed to be found. Mauro explained the current merge process, and after that the floor was opened for discussions. One of the problems is that it can be difficult to categorize patches since often they are just prefixed with [PATCH]. Depending on who mailed it that might mean an urgent regression fix, a patch that's ready to be merged or a patch that needs review. There is no reliable way of knowing that without actually looking at the mail. One thing that we want to improve is to make sure that the regular contributors at least use well defined patch prefixes. That means that we need a standard prefix for regression fixes that need to go into the current rcX kernel asap. This will make it easy to recognize them. We also need a prefix for patches that we want to have reviewed before a final git pull request is posted. Laurent will look into extending patchwork to have such patches be marked as 'Under Review' automatically. There is a distinction between RFC patches and patches you consider final (i.e. ready for merging), but want people to look at. RFC patches will typically need more work, but you want people to check it out and make sure you are going in the right direction. Review patches are what you consider the final version, but you want to give people a final chance to comment on them before posting the pull request. We also want to improve the MAINTAINERS file: it must be complete (with the exception of RC keymaps, where that doesn't make sense). When posting review patches the reviewed-by/acked-by from the actual person mentioned in the MAINTAINERS file is sufficient to get the patch merged. Obviously, if someone not responsible for the driver in question has good technical arguments why it's wrong, then that should be taken into account. In addition, the current list of media driver maintainers in that file needs to be validated: are all emails still current, and is everyone still willing to maintain their driver? New drivers also must come with a MAINTAINERS entry. In other words, the MAINTAINERS file will become more important. The final decision we made was to appoint submaintainers of parts of the media subsystem. Those submaintainers will take over Mauro's job for those parts that they are responsible for, and make periodic pull requests to Mauro to pull in the patches they have collected. The submaintainers will be: - Mike Krufky: frontends/tuners/demodulators In addition he'll be the reviewer for DVB core patches. - Hans Verkuil: V4L2 drivers and video A/D and D/A subdev drivers (aka video receivers and transmitters). In addition he'll be the reviewer for V4L2 core patches. - Laurent Pinchart: sensor subdev drivers - Kamil Debski: codec (aka memory-to-memory) drivers - Hans de Goede: non-UVC USB webcam drivers - Guennadi Liakhovetski: soc-camera drivers In addition, certain SoC vendors will remain responsible for their own drivers (Samsung, TI) and will keep sending them straight to Mauro. The first step is to get the MAINTAINERS file into shape and to improve patchwork, after that we need to clearly document the new structure. Only when that is done do the new submaintainers start their work. Requirements for New V4L2 Drivers ================================= The next topic was to document the requirements for new drivers. For the staging tree we want drivers to compile at the time of submission. That is all it should take to be accepted into staging. For inclusion into the mainline kernel we require the following: - Use struct v4l2_device for bridge drivers, use struct v4l2_subdev for sub-device drivers. - Use the control framework for control handling. - Use struct v4l2_fh if the driver supports events (implied by the use of controls) or priority handling. - Use videobuf2 for buffer handling. Mike Krufky will look into extending vb2 to support DVB buffers. - Must pass the v4l2-compliance tests. This will be documented as well in Documentation/video4linux/SubmittingDrivers.txt. V4L2 Ambiguities ================ In San Diego we discussed a lot of V4L2 ambiguities and how to resolve them, but we didn't have time to go through all of them. We finished it in Barcelona. - What to do if the colorspace is unknown? This happens with UVC webcams that do not report this. The decision was to make a V4L2_COLORSPACE_UNKNOWN. If that is reported, then no colorspace conversion should be attempted by the application. - Pixel Aspect Ratio: currently this is only available from VIDIOC_CROPCAP, which conflicts with the new selection API, and it doesn't really belong there anyway. The decision was to implement the pixel aspect ratio as a control, which implies adding a control type for fractions. This needs good documentation and a code example. - Should we add a QUERYCAP ioctl for subdevice nodes? The conclusion was that we should add a VIDIOC_SUBDEV_QUERYCAP ioctl. Initially that just needs a version field and some reserved fields and it can be handled in v4l2-subdev.c. - Tuner ownership: how should the tuner ownership be handled? The proposal I wrote for this was accepted, with the addition that the code to handle tuner ownership should be shared between DVB and V4L2. I have my name and Hans de Goede's name next to this topic, but I've forgotten what we were supposed to do :-) Transport Stream Muxer ====================== ST discussed how to design a driver for a hardware Transport Stream Muxer: this hardware contains a number of DMA engines allowing many transport streams (up to 8192, which is the theoretical maximum) to be muxed into a single big transport stream. Due to the large number of possible transport streams one cannot make a video node for each of them. So the solution is to have one memory-to-memory device. Every time it is opened you make a new context (filehandle specific) and after setting up the PID (and possibly other (meta) data) you can write the TS to it. There is only one output stream, though. Perhaps we need a new /dev/tsmuxX device node for this, that's still to be decided. ST will make an RFC for this idea to discuss this further on the mailinglist. DMABUF Testing ============== Progress had been made on this: Laurent showed UVC using DMABUF passing the buffer directly to the i915 GPU. Asynchronous Loading for Device Tree ==================================== The device tree patches posted by Guennadi were well received, but the part dealing with async loading of devices led to a lot of discussion on the mailinglist so we tried to come to a conclusion during the summit meeting. The current patch uses a field in the platform_data of a subdevice to detect whether the bridge driver was present. A better solution is to check for the presence of required resources (e.g. a clock) instead: if not present, then defer probing. It was noted that the asynchronous behavior of the device tree will lead to subdevices that are loaded in a random order. This might cause subtle problems in the future if the order of device initialization matters for certain boards. It shouldn't matter, but theory and reality are different things. There is nothing that can be done about it at the moment. Should this become a problem, then that should be discussed with the DT developers since this is a DT problem and is not specific to V4L2. The 'group' idea in the async loading patches wasn't liked. Instead the suggestion was to provide two different notification methods: a notification when the last required subdev is loaded, and a notification for each loaded subdev. The latter can be used when not all subdevs might be present. In that case the bridge driver needs to be able to decide when sufficient subdevs were found in order to start up. Conclusion ========== We managed to get through all topics during this one-day summit, so it was very productive. I'd like to thank all who were there, it's always a pleasure to meet you all! Regards, Hans Verkuil

2 5

Tentative Agenda for the November workshop
by Hans Verkuil 11 Dec '12

11 Dec '12

Hi all, This is the tentative agenda for the media workshop on November 8, 2012. If you have additional things that you want to discuss, or something is wrong or incomplete in this list, please let me know so I can update the list. - Explain current merging process (Mauro) - Open floor for discussions on how to improve it (Mauro) - Write down minimum requirements for new V4L2 (and DVB?) drivers, both for staging and mainline acceptance: which frameworks to use, v4l2-compliance, etc. (Hans Verkuil) - V4L2 ambiguities (Hans Verkuil) - TSMux device (a mux rather than a demux): Alain Volmat - dmabuf status, esp. with regards to being able to test (Mauro/Samsung) - Device tree support (Guennadi, not known yet whether this topic is needed) - Creating/selecting contexts for hardware that supports this (Samsung, only if time is available) For those whose name is behind a topic: please prepare something before the meeting. We have currently 17 or 18 attendees of a maximum of 25, so there is room for a few more people. Regards, Hans

12 37

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

media-workshop December 2012