Re: [PATCH] media: uvcvideo: Ensure all probed info is returned to v4l2

[Adam Goode]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 1:37 AM Adam Goode <agoode@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> bFrameIndex and bFormatIndex can be negotiated by the camera during
> probing, resulting in the camera choosing a different format than
> expected. v4l2 can already accommodate such changes, but the code was
> not updating the proper fields.
>
> Without such a change, v4l2 would potentially interpret the payload
> incorrectly, causing corrupted output. This was happening on the
> Elgato HD60 S+, which currently always renegotiates to format 1.
>
> As an aside, the Elgato firmware is buggy and should not be renegotating,
> but it is still a valid thing for the camera to do. Both macOS and Windows
> will properly probe and read uncorrupted images from this camera.
>
> With this change, both qv4l2 and chromium can now read uncorrupted video
> from the Elgato HD60 S+.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Goode <agoode@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c
> index 0335e69b70ab..7f14096cb44d 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_v4l2.c
> @@ -247,11 +247,37 @@ static int uvc_v4l2_try_format(struct uvc_streaming *stream,
>         if (ret < 0)
>                 goto done;
>
> +       /* After the probe, update fmt with the values returned from
> +        * negotiation with the device.
> +        */
> +       for (i = 0; i < stream->nformats; ++i) {
> +               if (probe->bFormatIndex == stream->format[i].index) {
> +                       format = &stream->format[i];
> +                       break;
> +               }
> +       }
> +       if (i == stream->nformats) {
> +               uvc_trace(UVC_TRACE_FORMAT, "Unknown bFormatIndex %u.\n",
> +                         probe->bFormatIndex);
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +       }
> +       for (i = 0; i < format->nframes; ++i) {
> +               if (probe->bFrameIndex == format->frame[i].bFrameIndex) {
> +                       frame = &format->frame[i];
> +                       break;
> +               }
> +       }
> +       if (i == format->nframes) {
> +               uvc_trace(UVC_TRACE_FORMAT, "Unknown bFrameIndex %u.\n",
> +                         probe->bFrameIndex);
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +       }
>         fmt->fmt.pix.width = frame->wWidth;
>         fmt->fmt.pix.height = frame->wHeight;
>         fmt->fmt.pix.field = V4L2_FIELD_NONE;
>         fmt->fmt.pix.bytesperline = uvc_v4l2_get_bytesperline(format, frame);
>         fmt->fmt.pix.sizeimage = probe->dwMaxVideoFrameSize;
> +       fmt->fmt.pix.pixelformat = format->fcc;
>         fmt->fmt.pix.colorspace = format->colorspace;
>
>         if (uvc_format != NULL)
> --
> 2.25.3
>

Hi,

Could someone please take a look at this patch? Is there another
process I should follow to have this reviewed?


Thanks,

Adam