Em Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:06:51 +0100
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-ci...@xs4all.nl> escreveu:
> On 3/20/19 1:55 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:33:04 +0100
> > hverkuil-ci...@xs4all.nl escreveu:
> >
> >> From: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-ci...@xs4all.nl>
> >>
> >> Stateless codecs require the use of the Request API as opposed of it
> >> being optional.
> >>
> >> So add a bit to indicate this and let vb2 check for this.
> >>
> >> If an attempt is made to queue a buffer without an associated request,
> >> then the EBADR error is returned to userspace.
> >>
> >> Doing this check in the vb2 core simplifies drivers, since they
> >> don't have to check for this, they can just set this flag.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-ci...@xs4all.nl>
> >> Reviewed-by: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkow...@bootlin.com>
> >> ---
> >> Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst | 4 ++++
> >> drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-core.c | 9 +++++++++
> >> drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-v4l2.c | 4 ++++
> >> include/media/videobuf2-core.h | 3 +++
> >> 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst
> >> b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst
> >> index c138d149faea..5739c3676062 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst
> >> +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst
> >> @@ -189,6 +189,10 @@ EACCES
> >> The ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_REQUEST_FD`` flag was set but the device does not
> >> support requests for the given buffer type.
> >>
> >> +EBADR
> >> + The ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_REQUEST_FD`` flag was not set but the device
> >> requires
> >> + that the buffer is part of a request.
> >> +
> >
> > Hmm... IMO, you should replace the previous text instead:
> >
> > EACCES
> > The ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_REQUEST_FD`` flag was set but the device does
> > not
> > support requests for the given buffer type.
>
> No. This is already being returned, so changing this will be an API change.
>
> That said, since the only drivers that can return this are vivid, vim2m and
> cedrus,
> (i.e. test and staging drivers), I am OK to change this to EBADR as well.
>
> In that case it would become:
>
> EBADR
> The ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_REQUEST_FD`` flag was set but the device driver does
> not support requests for the given buffer type, or the
> ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_REQUEST_FD`` flag was not set but the device driver
> requires that the buffer is part of a request.
Ok, let's do that, as, IMHO, it makes it a lot more clear.
>
> >
> > Also, I would replace:
> >
> > device -> device driver
> >
> > As this ia a device driver limitation of the current implementation,
> > with may or may not reflect a hardware limitation.
> >
> >> EBUSY
> >> The first buffer was queued via a request, but the application now
> >> tries
> >> to queue it directly, or vice versa (it is not permitted to mix the
> >> two
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-core.c
> >> b/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-core.c
> >> index 678a31a2b549..b98ec6e1a222 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/common/videobuf2/videobuf2-core.c
> >> @@ -1507,6 +1507,12 @@ int vb2_core_qbuf(struct vb2_queue *q, unsigned int
> >> index, void *pb,
> >>
> >> vb = q->bufs[index];
> >>
> >> + if (!req && vb->state != VB2_BUF_STATE_IN_REQUEST &&
> >> + q->requires_requests) {
> >> + dprintk(1, "qbuf requires a request\n");
> >> + return -EBADR;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> if ((req && q->uses_qbuf) ||
> >> (!req && vb->state != VB2_BUF_STATE_IN_REQUEST &&
> >> q->uses_requests)) {
> >> @@ -2238,6 +2244,9 @@ int vb2_core_queue_init(struct vb2_queue *q)
> >> WARN_ON(!q->ops->buf_queue))
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> + if (WARN_ON(q->requires_requests && !q->supports_requests))
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >
> > Shouldn't it also be EBADR?
>
> No, this checks that the driver doesn't set requires_requests without
> also setting supports_requests. I.e. this indicates a driver bug, hence
> the WARN_ON. Requiring requests, but not supporting them makes obviously
> no sense.
Ok.
Thanks,
Mauro
