Re: Re: [PATCH] media: uvcvideo: query pan/tilt position from the device on every read

[Ricardo Ribalda]

Hi Michael

On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 at 01:11, Michael Jordan <jordan.mymail@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Ricardo,
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 19:14:51 +0200, Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > You definitely have to ping the vendor to make sure they fix their firmware.
>
> Done -- I wrote to OBSBOT on 4 August covering the GET_INFO stub along
> with two other compliance defects I found on the device (a control
> default outside the control's own min/max, and PanTilt-Relative
> returning a constant). No response so far. I will report back if that
> changes.
>
> One thing I should have made explicit earlier, since it bears on
> whether this patch is the right general-case fix rather than a quirk
> for one broken camera: correcting that firmware would not make the
> position observable.
>
> The driver clears the control cache in exactly two places --
> uvc_ctrl_status_event() on a Control Change interrupt, and
> uvc_ctrl_commit_entity() after a SET_CUR commit for auto-update
> controls -- and __uvc_ctrl_load_cur() re-arms it after each read. So on
> a fully compliant device a host-commanded move yields two samples, both
> endpoints: the first G_CTRL after the commit reaches the device, but it
> runs microseconds after the command, when the actuator has not yet
> moved, and every later poll returns that value frozen until the
> end-of-movement interrupt. Under autonomous tracking there is no commit
> and no defined interrupt, so nothing invalidates the cache at all.

I believe that if AUTO_UPDATE would be properly initialized, then, the
values will always be fresh when you run G_CTRL o G_EXT_CTRLS from
userspace:

G_EXT_CTRLS
 uvc_ioctl_g_ext_ctls()
   uvc_ctrl_rollback()
     uvc_ctrl_commit()
        uvc_ctrl_commit_entity()
            ctrl->loaded=0

So all the values captured with G_EXT_CTRL() will show fresh data.




>
> So the limit is the caching model rather than the device. That is the
> case I would want the patch judged on, and it applies to correct
> firmware too.
>
> Worth flagging one side effect if OBSBOT does fix GET_INFO: with
> AUTO_UPDATE reported, uvc_ctrl_commit_entity() would begin clearing
> ctrl->loaded on this camera, so single-axis writes issued tens of
> milliseconds apart would start merging against live data and cancelling
> each other -- the second failure mode I measured. It would move the
> device from one horn of the read-modify-write question to the other,
> which is the pre-existing problem you identified and which this patch
> deliberately does not touch.
>
> No action needed from my side while we wait for Laurent, HansG or
> HansV. I am still happy to respin with the autonomous-tracking case
> argued in the commit message rather than in this thread, if that would
> help whoever picks it up.

Until they reply maybe you want to:
  - rename uvc_ctrl_fixup_xu_info to uvc_ctrl_fixup_flags
  - modify uvc_ctrl_get_flags so it calls uvc_ctrl_fixup_flags
  - add your device information to uvc_ctrl_fixup_flags

and then modify your userspace code, so you allways do S_EXT_CTRLS()
with the information of both axis.

I believe that should cover your usecase.


>
> Best regards,
> Michael Jordan
>
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2026 01:00 AM, Michael Jordan <jordan.mymail@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ricardo,
>>
>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 19:14:51 +0200, Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > How accurate does the mapping frame/position need to be?
>> >
>> > You do not know how big the camera pipeline is. Maybe you are
>> > processing frame NOW-4 when you read position NOW
>>
>> Not accurate at all, and I should have been clearer earlier: I picked
>> "the former" for the continuous part of your question, not for the
>> frame-tagging example. Nothing in my use case correlates a position
>> with a particular frame. The position is an input to a control loop
>> ("where am I, so I can ask for ten degrees left of here") and a number
>> on a UI, and the gimbal's own time constants are hundreds of
>> milliseconds per move, so a few frames of pipeline skew is far below
>> anything that matters.
>>
>> If someone did want frame-accurate pose, I agree a G_CTRL read would be
>> the wrong instrument entirely -- that is a per-frame metadata problem,
>> and this patch would not be the right vehicle for it.
>>
>> > unrelated note: if you need to set the two axis at the set time, you
>> > can use  V4L.VIDIOC_S_EXT_CTRLS
>> > [...]
>> > In fact you could use that today to avoid part of the kernel issue.
>> > Always send pan and tilt when you are tracking the movement.
>>
>> Thanks -- and you are right that this sidesteps the merge problem
>> completely, which I had not appreciated. Both mappings land in
>> UVC_CTRL_DATA_CURRENT before the single commit, so whatever
>> __uvc_ctrl_load_cur() put there is fully overwritten and it no longer
>> matters which source the RMW pulled from. I will switch my userspace to
>> always send both axes. It does not touch the read side, but it makes
>> the write side a non-issue for me in the meantime.
>>
>> > If AUTO_UPDATE is present you would get fresh data when you poll the
>> > control.
>>
>> One clarification for the record, since it bears on what you are asking
>> HansV to weigh: that holds via the interrupt rather than via the poll.
>> uvc_ctrl_status_event() clears ctrl->loaded, so a poll after a
>> notification does re-read the device -- but polls between notifications
>> still return the cache, because __uvc_ctrl_load_cur() returns early on
>> ctrl->loaded and nothing else clears it outside a commit. So on a
>> compliant autoupdate device the update rate is the device's signalling
>> rate, and for pan/tilt 4.2.2.1.15 only promises that signal at the end
>> of the movement. Good enough for "it stopped, here is where"; not for
>> sampling a trajectory. I mention it only so the comparison is accurate,
>> not to relitigate -- your framing of the two problems matches how I see
>> them.
>>
>> > You definitely have to ping the vendor to make sure they fix their
>> > firmware.
>>
>> Agreed, and I will. I am not counting on a timeline.
>>
>> > Let's wait a bit for Laurent or HansG (or even Hans Verkuil) to
>> > comment.
>>
>> Sounds good -- no rush at all from my side, and I am happy to respin
>> against whatever shape you all land on. Enjoy the time off.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Michael Jordan



-- 
Ricardo Ribalda