Re: [PATCH v5 00/39] i.MX Media Driver

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

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.

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"?

_I_ was the one who reported the EXPBUF problem.  Your comment makes no
sense.

> 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?

_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.

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.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.