On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 11:33 +0100, Brian Starkey wrote:
Hi Ezequiel,
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 05:06:07PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Turn the reserved2 field into fence_fd that we will use to send
> an in-fence to the kernel or return an out-fence from the kernel to
> userspace.
>
> Two new flags were added, V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE, that should be used
> when sending an in-fence to the kernel to be waited on, and
> V4L2_BUF_FLAG_OUT_FENCE, to ask the kernel to give back an out-fence.
>
> v7: minor fixes on the Documentation (Hans Verkuil)
>
> v6: big improvement on doc (Hans Verkuil)
>
> v5: - keep using reserved2 field for cpia2
> - set fence_fd to 0 for now, for compat with userspace(Mauro)
>
> v4: make it a union with reserved2 and fence_fd (Hans Verkuil)
>
> v3: make the out_fence refer to the current buffer (Hans Verkuil)
>
> v2: add documentation
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/buffer.rst | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-v4l2.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c | 4 +--
> include/uapi/linux/videodev2.h | 8 ++++-
> 4 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/buffer.rst b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/buffer.rst
> index e2c85ddc990b..be9719cf5745 100644
> --- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/buffer.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/buffer.rst
> @@ -301,10 +301,22 @@ struct v4l2_buffer
> elements in the ``planes`` array. The driver will fill in the
> actual number of valid elements in that array.
> * - __u32
> - - ``reserved2``
> + - ``fence_fd``
> -
> - - A place holder for future extensions. Drivers and applications
> - must set this to 0.
> + - Used to communicate a fence file descriptors from userspace to kernel
> + and vice-versa. On :ref:`VIDIOC_QBUF <VIDIOC_QBUF>` when sending
> + an in-fence for V4L2 to wait on, the ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE`` flag must
> + be used and this field set to the fence file descriptor of the in-fence.
> + If the in-fence is not valid ` VIDIOC_QBUF`` returns an error.
> +
> + To get an out-fence back from V4L2 the ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_OUT_FENCE``
> + must be set, the kernel will return the out-fence file descriptor in
> + this field. If it fails to create the out-fence ``VIDIOC_QBUF` returns
> + an error.
> +
> + For all other ioctls V4L2 sets this field to -1 if
> + ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE`` and/or ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_OUT_FENCE`` are set,
> + otherwise this field is set to 0 for backward compatibility.
> * - __u32
> - ``reserved``
> -
> @@ -648,6 +660,33 @@ Buffer Flags
> - Start Of Exposure. The buffer timestamp has been taken when the
> exposure of the frame has begun. This is only valid for the
> ``V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE`` buffer type.
> + * .. _`V4L2-BUF-FLAG-IN-FENCE`:
> +
> + - ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE``
> + - 0x00200000
> + - Ask V4L2 to wait on the fence passed in the ``fence_fd`` field. The
> + buffer won't be queued to the driver until the fence signals. The order
> + in which buffers are queued is guaranteed to be preserved, so any
> + buffers queued after this buffer will also be blocked until this fence
> + signals. This flag must be set before calling ``VIDIOC_QBUF``. For
> + other ioctls the driver just reports the value of the flag.
> +
> + If the fence signals the flag is cleared and not reported anymore.
> + If the fence is not valid ``VIDIOC_QBUF`` returns an error.
> +
> +
> + * .. _`V4L2-BUF-FLAG-OUT-FENCE`:
> +
> + - ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_OUT_FENCE``
> + - 0x00400000
> + - Request for a fence to be attached to the buffer. The driver will fill
> + in the out-fence fd in the ``fence_fd`` field when :ref:`VIDIOC_QBUF
> + <VIDIOC_QBUF>` returns. This flag must be set before calling
> + ``VIDIOC_QBUF``. For other ioctls the driver just reports the value of
> + the flag.
> +
> + If the creation of the out-fence fails ``VIDIOC_QBUF`` returns an
> + error.
>
I commented similarly on some of the old patch-sets, and it's a minor
thing, but I still think the ordering of this series is off. It's
strange/wrong to me document all this behaviour, and expose the flags
to userspace, when the functionality isn't implemented yet.
If I apply this patch to the kernel, then the kernel doesn't do what
the (newly added) kernel-doc says it will.
This has never been a problem, and it has always been the canonical
way of doing things.
First the required macros, stubs, documentation and interfaces are added,
and then they are implemented.
I see no reason to go berserk here, unless you see an actual problem?
Or something actually broken?
The only thing I can think of is that we should return fence_fd -1
if the flags are set. We could do it on this patch, and be consistent
with userspace.
Regards,
Eze