Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210319055342.127308-1-senozhatsky@chromium.org>
 <20210319055342.127308-6-senozhatsky@chromium.org> <CANiDSCt72o_E=gRBRhMWWmta-H2WGmDqg5_PBGHBrVCG4iepZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YFqdaHCQak5ZM0Sf@google.com> <CAAFQd5DaDZA8==HPrL1v1M=1a5g3DgY58nuq7KnA8USQ6UuiTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YFqkaumASvjrYP/n@google.com> <CAAFQd5AdJfNLoXwDEgCf90cm5e30rT98SO5CRJ=oR8Do_T566A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YFqpcR60384JWbNP@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YFqpcR60384JWbNP@google.com>
From:   Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:00:48 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAFQd5CJBPtLo22u2dM-vOGmqaD2e=TU5Qv1eoKcHsxuumgXGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 5/6] media: uvcvideo: add UVC 1.5 ROI control
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Cc:     Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:52 AM Sergey Senozhatsky
<senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On (21/03/24 11:34), Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:31 AM Sergey Senozhatsky
> > <senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
> [..]
> > > > Adjusting the rectangle to something supported by the hardware is
> > > > mentioned explicitly in the V4L2 API documentation and is what drivers
> > > > have to implement. Returning an error on invalid value is not a
> > > > correct behavior here (and similarly for many other operations, e.g.
> > > > S_FMT).
> > >
> > > Well, in this particular case we are talking about user-space that wants
> > > to set ROI rectangle that is knowingly violates device's GET_MAX and
> > > overflows UVC ROI rectangle u16 value range. That's a clear bug in user-space.
> > > Do we want to pretend that user-space does the correct thing and fixup
> > > stuff behind the scenes?
> > >
> >
> > That's how the API is defined. There is a valid use case for this -
> > you don't need to run QUERY_CTRL if all you need is setting the
> > biggest possible rectangle, just set it to (0, 0), (INT_MAX, INT_MAX).
>
> I guess in our case we need to talk about rectangle,auto-controls tuple
> that we send to firmware
>
>         rect {
>                 (0, 0), (INT_MAX, INT_MAX)
>         }
>         auto-controls {
>                 INT_MAX
>         }
>
> For ROI user-space also must provide valid auto-controls value, which
> normally requires GET_MIN/GET_MAX discovery.
>
> v4l2 selection API mentions only rectangle adjustments and errnos like
> -ERANGE also mention "It is not possible to adjust struct v4l2_rect r
> rectangle to satisfy all constraints given in the flags argument".
>
> So in case when auto-controls is out of supported range (out of
> GET_MIN, GET_MAX range) there is no way for us to tell user-space that
> auto-controls is wrong. We probably need silently pick up the first
> supported value, but not sure how well this will work out in the end.

Shouldn't the autocontrol selection be done via a separate bitmask
control rather than some custom flags in the selection API?

Best regards,
Tomasz