[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] VirtIO video device specification
Hi Keiichi,
On Freitag, 10. Januar 2020 14:53:01 CET Keiichi Watanabe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 7:16 PM Dmitry Sepp <dmitry.sepp@opensynergy.com>
wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2020 15:56:08 CET Dmitry Sepp wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Dienstag, 7. Januar 2020 11:25:56 CET Keiichi Watanabe wrote:
> > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:28 PM Dmitry Sepp
> > > > <dmitry.sepp@opensynergy.com>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Montag, 6. Januar 2020 11:30:22 CET Keiichi Watanabe wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Dmitry, Tomasz,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 10:05 PM Dmitry Sepp
> > > > > > <dmitry.sepp@opensynergy.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Tomasz, Keiichi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Samstag, 21. Dezember 2019 07:19:23 CET Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 3:18 PM Tomasz Figa
> > > > > > > > <tfiga@chromium.org>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 1:36 PM Keiichi Watanabe
> > > > > > > > > <keiichiw@chromium.org>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 12:59 AM Dmitry Sepp
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <dmitry.sepp@opensynergy.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Keiichi,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mittwoch, 18. Dezember 2019 14:02:13 CET Keiichi
> > > > > > > > > > > Watanabe
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is the 2nd version of virtio-video patch. The PDF
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > > in [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > The first version was sent at [2].
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Keiichi
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1eT5fEckBoor2iH
> > > > > > > > > > > > ZR4f
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4G
> > > > > > > > > > > > LxYz
> > > > > > > > > > > > FMVa
> > > > > > > > > > > > pOFx?us
> > > > > > > > > > > > p=sharing [2]:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://markmail.org/message/gc6h25acct22niut
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Change log:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > v2:
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Removed functionalities except encoding and
> > > > > > > > > > > > decoding.
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Splited encoder and decoder into different devices
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > protocol. * Replaced GET_FUNCS with GET_CAPABILITY.
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Updated structs for capabilities.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Defined new structs and enums such as image
> > > > > > > > > > > > formats,
> > > > > > > > > > > > profiles,
> > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (min, max, step), etc
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * For virtio_video_pixel_format, chose a naming
> > > > > > > > > > > > convention
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > is used
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > in DRM. We removed XBGR, NV21 and I422, as they
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > current draft implementation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/806416/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Removed virtio_video_control, whose usage was not
> > > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > > yet
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > which is not necessary for the simplest decoding
> > > > > > > > > > > > scenario.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Removed virtio_video_desc, as it is no longer
> > > > > > > > > > > > needed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Updated struct virtio_video_config for changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Added a way to represent supported combinations of
> > > > > > > > > > > > formats.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - A field "mask" in virtio_video_format_desc plays
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > role.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Removed VIRTIO_VIDEO_T_STREAM_{START,STOP} because
> > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > play
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > meaningful roles. * Removed
> > > > > > > > > > > > VIRTIO_VIDEO_T_STREAM_{ATTACH,
> > > > > > > > > > > > DETACH}_BACKING
> > > > > > > > > > > > and merged them into RESOURCE_{CREATE, DESTROY}. *
> > > > > > > > > > > > Added a
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > notify/specify resource creation method.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Added a feature flag.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Defined enum virtio_video_mem_type.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Added new fields in video_stream_create.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Modified fields in virtio_video_params.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Added crop information.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Removed enum virtio_video_channel_type because we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > information by image format.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you please explain this? How do you get the
> > > > > > > > > > > information?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It means that if image formats are well-defined, channel
> > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > (e.g. the order of channels) is uniquely determined.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Suppose you have some piece of HW on the host side that
> > > > > > > > > > > wants
> > > > > > > > > > > I420
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > contig buffer w/ some offsets. But on the driver side,
> > > > > > > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > > > > > gralloc
> > > > > > > > > > > gives you three separate buffers, one per channel. How
> > > > > > > > > > > do we
> > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > those to the device then?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You're talking about CrOS use case where buffers are
> > > > > > > > > > allocated
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > virtio-gpu, right?
> > > > > > > > > > In this case, virtio-gpu allocates one contiguous
> > > > > > > > > > host-side
> > > > > > > > > > buffer
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > the client regards a pair of (buffer FD, offset) as one
> > > > > > > > > > channel.
> > > > > > > > > > And, we can register this pair to the device when the
> > > > > > > > > > buffer
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > imported.
> > > > > > > > > > In the virtio-vdec spec draft, this pair corresponds to
> > > > > > > > > > struct
> > > > > > > > > > virtio_vdec_plane in struct virtio_vdec_plane.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, I suppose we will need similar structs when we add a
> > > > > > > > > > control
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > import buffers. However, I don't think it's necessary when
> > > > > > > > > > guest
> > > > > > > > > > pages
> > > > > > > > > > are used.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we need some way for the guest to know whether it
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > allocate
> > > > > > > > > the planes in separate buffers, even when guest pages are
> > > > > > > > > used.
> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > would be equivalent to V4L2 M and non-M formats, but mixing
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > FourCC in V4L2 is an acknowledged mistake, so we should add
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > query or
> > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, this is what I mean. In fact, we already do face the
> > > > > > > situation
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > the device side is not happy with the sgt and wants contig. I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > we'll
> > > > > > > add a module parameter for now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay. So, I suppose we'll be able to update structs:
> > > > > > * Add a flag in virtio_video_format_desc that indicates whether
> > > > > > planes
> > > > > > can be in separate buffers, and
> > > > > > * Add a flag in virtio_video_format_desc that indicates that the
> > > > > > device requires contiguous buffers for this format.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does it make sense?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I don't understand the difference between the two above:
> > > > > isn't
> > > > > the
> > > > > first case is just when the flag is not set?
> > > >
> > > > Ah, I was confused and wrote something strange. Yeah, these two are
> > > > the
> > > > same. Sorry for that.
> > > >
> > > > So, the suggestion is to add a field "planes_layout" in
> > > > virtio_video_format_desc, which is one of the following enums:
> > > >
> > > > enum virtio_video_planes_layout {
> > > >
> > > > VIRTIO_VIDEO_PLANES_LAYOUT_UNSPEC = 0, /* no special requirement
> > > > */
> > > > VIRTIO_VIDEO_PLANES_LAYOUT_CONTIGUOUS,
> > > >
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > If we have a better idea or naming, please let me know.
> > >
> > > The naming looks good for me, I might only change to CONTIG as we have
> > > UNSPEC.
> >
> > So here we are talking about plane layout in memory, am I correct? But I
> > think we also need a way to communicate memory requirements of the
> > device: the device might require CMA buffers or it can be ok with SG
> > lists. What about adding something like this to virtio_video_format_desc:
> >
> > enum virtio_video_mem_layout {
> >
> > VIRTIO_VIDEO_MEM_LAYOUT_UNDEFINED = 0,
> >
> > VIRTIO_VIDEO_MEM_LAYOUT_CONTIG = 0x100,
> > VIRTIO_VIDEO_MEM_LAYOUT_NON_CONTIG,
> >
> > };
> >
> > struct virtio_video_format_desc {
> >
> > __le64 mask;
> > __le32 format; /* One of VIRTIO_VIDEO_FORMAT_* types */
> > __le32 planes_layout; /* One of VIRTIO_VIDEO_PLANES_LAYOUT_* types */
> > __le32 mem_layout; /* One of VIRTIO_VIDEO_MEM_LAYOUT_* types */
> > ...
> >
> > };
>
> Good.
> I'd not like to call it NON_CONTIG, as it sounds like CMA buffers
> aren't allowed.
> Instead, how about this definition?
>
> enum virtio_video_mem_layout {
> VIRTIO_VIDEO_MEM_LAYOUT_UNSPEC = 0, /* no special requirement */
> VIRTIO_VIDEO_MEM_LAYOUT_CONTIG = 1,
> };
Yes, I agree, that would be more correct. We just need an empty line to be
aligned with other enums.
>
> With this enum,
> * the device can simply ignore this field if it doesn't have any
> requirement and the struct is zero-initialized, and
> * if we need to add other types of memory layout requirements, we can
> add them as 2, 4, 8, etc to represent combinations of requirements.
>
> Just to confirm, are the following combination of planes_layout and
> mem_layout valid?
> (1) (planes_layout, mem_layout) = (contig, not specified)
> (2) (planes_layout, mem_layout) = (not specified, contig)
>
> In my understanding, (1) means that each plane must be a contiguous
> buffer while different planes don't have to be in a contig memory, but
> (2) is invalid.
> Is it correct?
Let me tell a bit more about my vision:
mem_layout: device can handle SG lists (e.g. using iommu) or it cannot and
needs CMA. If it can handle SG, CMA is also ok. So it is ether 'I don't care'
or 'give me CMA'.
planes_layout: some devices might want to see multiplanar data in one buffer.
So if we allocate two sets of mem entries (one per each plane) and send them
to the host, the device will fail to handle those.
So from my perspective you example can be interpreted as follows:
(1) means all your planes are hosted by one buffer instance (we can see it as
one fd for all planes plus per-plane offsets inside the buffer), the buffer
itself consists of arbitrary pages (or can consist, as it can of course also
be CMA, because of UNSPEC).
(2) valid, means each plane has its own buffer, each buffer is contiguous in
memory (must be allocated from CMA), but planes are not necessarily adjacent
to each other in memory.
This also means that we cannot have unspec for planes layout. Device either
expects planes in separate buffers or in one buffer with some offsets, there
cannot be mixed cases. So it should look like this:
enum virtio_video_planes_layout {
VIRTIO_VIDEO_PLANES_LAYOUT_UNSPEC = 0, /* default, invalid */
VIRTIO_VIDEO_PLANES_LAYOUT_CONTIG = 0x100,
VIRTIO_VIDEO_PLANES_LAYOUT_NON_CONTIG,
};
Best regards,
Dmitry
>
> Best regards,
> Keiichi
>
> > Best regards,
> > Dmitry.
> >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Dmitry.
> > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Keiichi
> > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Dmitry.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Keiichi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Dmitry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For future V4L2 development we came up with the idea of a
> > > > > > > > > format
> > > > > > > > > flag
> > > > > > > > > which could mean that the hardware allows putting planes in
> > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > buffers. We could have a similar per-format flag in the
> > > > > > > > > capabilities,
> > > > > > > > > as we already have a list of all the supported formats
> > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry, forgot to paste the link from future V4L2 work notes
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > year
> > > > > > > > ELCE: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg159789.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Tomasz
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Keiichi
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Renamed virtio_video_pin to virtio_video_buf_type.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - It's similar to V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_{OUTPUT,
> > > > > > > > > > > > CAPTURE}.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Added an error event.
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Reordered some subsections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Changed styles to make it consistent with other
> > > > > > > > > > > > devices.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry Sepp (1):
> > > > > > > > > > > > virtio-video: Add virtio video device specification
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > content.tex | 1 +
> > > > > > > > > > > > virtio-video.tex | 579
> > > > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 580 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 virtio-video.tex
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2.24.1.735.g03f4e72817-goog
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]