Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-193753-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 17:30:27 +0900
From: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>
To: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>, 
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	"hn.chen" <hn.chen@sunplusit.com>, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>, 
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] media: uvcvideo: Fix hw timestamp handling for
 slow FPS
Message-ID: <djwmp42odw4cre3yzvhlhsaxgp437qcg36kcvqzqadqqtc45zo@mzvernwjawfi>
References: <20240323-resend-hwtimestamp-v10-0-b08e590d97c7@chromium.org>
 <20240323-resend-hwtimestamp-v10-6-b08e590d97c7@chromium.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240323-resend-hwtimestamp-v10-6-b08e590d97c7@chromium.org>

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 10:48:07AM +0000, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> In UVC 1.5 we get a single clock value per frame. With the current
> buffer size of 32, FPS slowers than 32 might roll-over twice.
> 
> The current code cannot handle two roll-over and provide invalid
> timestamps.
> 
> Remove all the samples from the circular buffer that are more than two
> rollovers old, so the algorithm always provides good timestamps.
> 
> Note that we are removing values that are more than one second old,
> which means that there is enough distance between the two points that
> we use for the interpolation to provide good values.
> 
> Tested-by: HungNien Chen <hn.chen@sunplusit.com>
> Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
> ---
>  drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_video.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvcvideo.h  |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_video.c b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_video.c
> index 5df8f61d39cd1..900b57afac93a 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_video.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_video.c
> @@ -471,8 +471,31 @@ static void uvc_video_clock_add_sample(struct uvc_clock *clock,
>  {
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * If we write new data on the position where we had the last
> +	 * overflow, remove the overflow pointer. There is no overflow
> +	 * on the whole circular buffer.
> +	 */
> +	if (clock->head == clock->last_sof_overflow)
> +		clock->last_sof_overflow = -1;
> +
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&clock->lock, flags);
>  
> +	/* Handle overflows */
> +	if (clock->count > 0 && clock->last_sof > sample->dev_sof) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Remove data from the circular buffer that is older than the
> +		 * last overflow. We only support one overflow per circular
> +		 * buffer.
> +		 */
> +		if (clock->last_sof_overflow != -1) {
> +			clock->count = (clock->head - clock->last_sof_overflow
> +					+ clock->count) % clock->count;
> +		}
> +		clock->last_sof_overflow = clock->head;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Add sample */
>  	clock->samples[clock->head] = *sample;
>  	clock->head = (clock->head + 1) % clock->size;
>  	clock->count = min(clock->count + 1, clock->size);
> @@ -616,6 +639,7 @@ static void uvc_video_clock_reset(struct uvc_clock *clock)
>  	clock->head = 0;
>  	clock->count = 0;
>  	clock->last_sof = -1;
> +	clock->last_sof_overflow = -1;
>  	clock->sof_offset = -1;
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvcvideo.h b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvcvideo.h
> index cb9dd50bba8ac..fb9f9771131ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvcvideo.h
> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvcvideo.h
> @@ -499,6 +499,7 @@ struct uvc_streaming {
>  		unsigned int head;
>  		unsigned int count;
>  		unsigned int size;
> +		unsigned int last_sof_overflow;
>  
>  		u16 last_sof;
>  		u16 sof_offset;
> 
> -- 
> 2.44.0.396.g6e790dbe36-goog
> 
> 

Given that majority of cameras kind of run ~30 fps, this should improve
the timestamps for quite a lot of the users. Thanks.

Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>

Best regards,
Tomasz