[libcamera-devel] [PATCH v2 8/8] test: v4l2_device: Provide buffer sharing test

[Kieran Bingham]

On 13/02/2019 16:01, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Kieran,
> 
> Thank you for the patch.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 03:10:27PM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>> Obtain two V4L2Devices and use one to obtain a BufferPool.
>>
>> Propagate the formats from the first to the second device and then commence
>> sending buffers between the two devices in a ping-pong fashion.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham at ideasonboard.com>
>> ---
>>  test/v4l2_device/buffer_sharing.cpp | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  test/v4l2_device/meson.build        |   1 +
>>  2 files changed, 180 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 test/v4l2_device/buffer_sharing.cpp
>>
>> diff --git a/test/v4l2_device/buffer_sharing.cpp b/test/v4l2_device/buffer_sharing.cpp
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..f03201e82084
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/test/v4l2_device/buffer_sharing.cpp
>> @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google Inc.
>> + *
>> + * libcamera V4L2 API tests
>> + *
>> + * Validate the function of exporting buffers from a V4L2Device and
>> + * the ability to import them to another V4L2Device instance.
>> + * Ensure that the Buffers can successfully be queued and dequeued
>> + * between both devices.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <iostream>
>> +
>> +#include <libcamera/buffer.h>
>> +#include <libcamera/camera_manager.h>
>> +#include <libcamera/event_dispatcher.h>
>> +#include <libcamera/timer.h>
>> +
>> +#include "v4l2_device_test.h"
>> +
>> +#include "log.h"
>> +
>> +LOG_DEFINE_CATEGORY(Test)
> 
> Can you use std::cout until we implement a test logger ?

#include "log.h" removed :) (thus all LOGs)

> 
>> +class BufferSharingTest : public V4L2DeviceTest
>> +{
>> +public:
>> +	BufferSharingTest()
>> +		: output_(nullptr), framesCapture(0), framesOutput(0){};
> 
> 	BufferSharingTest()
> 		: V4L2DeviceTest(), output_(nullptr), framesCapture(0),
> 		  framesOutput(0)
> 	{
> 	}
> 
>> +
>> +private:
>> +	const unsigned int bufferCount = 4;
>> +
>> +	V4L2Device *output_;
>> +	std::shared_ptr<MediaDevice> secondMedia_;
> 
> This can be removed.
> 
>> +
>> +	unsigned int framesCapture;
> 
> framesCaptured_ ?

Sure.

> 
>> +	unsigned int framesOutput;
> 
> framesOutput_ ?
> 

Done.


>> +
>> +protected:
>> +	int init()
>> +	{
>> +		int ret = V4L2DeviceTest::init();
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>> +
>> +		/* media_ already represents VIVID */
>> +		MediaEntity *entity = media_->getEntityByName("vivid-000-vid-out");
>> +		if (!entity)
>> +			return TestSkip;
>> +
>> +		output_ = new V4L2Device(entity);
>> +		if (!output_)
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +
>> +		ret = output_->open();
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +
>> +		V4L2DeviceFormat format;
> 
> You should either initialise format to all 0 here (format = {}) or do so
> in V4L2Device::getFormat().

Really? format is a class? Shouldn't it's constructor do that?
Hrm ... it has no constructor :(



>> +
>> +		ret = dev_->getFormat(&format);
>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +		}
> 
> No need for braces. Or rather please keep them and log a message
> explaining the cause of the error. Same for the other TestFail above and
> below.
> 
>> +
>> +		LOG(Test, Info) << "Successfully obtained format from source";
> 
> If we log failures I think you can remove this and the other LOG()
> instance below.
> 
>> +		ret = output_->setFormat(&format);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +
>> +		LOG(Test, Info) << "Successfully set format to output";
>> +
>> +		pool_.createBuffers(bufferCount);
>> +
>> +		ret = dev_->exportBuffers(&pool_);
> 
> Should we rename dev_ to capture_ in the base class ?

That seems reasonable now.

Lets handle that separately though.


> 
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +
>> +		ret = output_->importBuffers(&pool_);
>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			std::cerr << "Failed to import buffers" << std::endl;
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		return 0;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	void receiveSourceBuffer(Buffer *buffer)
> 
> How about captureBufferReady() ?
> 
>> +	{
>> +		std::cout << "Received source buffer: " << buffer->index()
>> +			  << " sequence " << buffer->sequence() << std::endl;
>> +
>> +		output_->queueBuffer(buffer);
>> +		framesCapture++;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	void receiveDestinationBuffer(Buffer *buffer)
> 
> And outputBufferReady() ?
> 
> Source and destination could be a bit confusing. I'd rework the messages
> accordingly.

Done

> 
>> +	{
>> +		std::cout << "Received destination buffer: " << buffer->index()
>> +			  << " sequence " << buffer->sequence() << std::endl;
>> +
>> +		dev_->queueBuffer(buffer);
>> +		framesOutput++;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	int run()
>> +	{
>> +		EventDispatcher *dispatcher = CameraManager::instance()->eventDispatcher();
>> +		Timer timeout;
>> +		int ret;
>> +
>> +		dev_->bufferReady.connect(this, &BufferSharingTest::receiveSourceBuffer);
>> +		output_->bufferReady.connect(this, &BufferSharingTest::receiveDestinationBuffer);
>> +
>> +		/* Queue all the buffers to the device. */
> 
> ... to the capture device.

done

> 
>> +		for (Buffer &b : pool_.buffers()) {
> 
> I'd spell buffer in full.

done

> 
>> +			if (dev_->queueBuffer(&b))
>> +				return TestFail;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		ret = dev_->streamOn();
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +
>> +		ret = output_->streamOn();
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +
>> +		timeout.start(10000);
>> +		while (timeout.isRunning()) {
>> +			dispatcher->processEvents();
>> +			if (framesCapture > 30 && framesOutput > 30)
>> +				break;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		if ((framesCapture < 1) || (framesOutput < 1)) {
>> +			std::cout << "Failed to process any frames within timeout." << std::endl;
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		if ((framesCapture < 30) || (framesOutput < 30)) {
>> +			std::cout << "Failed to process 30 frames within timeout." << std::endl;
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		ret = dev_->streamOff();
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +
>> +		ret = output_->streamOff();
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return TestFail;
>> +
>> +		return TestPass;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	void cleanup()
>> +	{
>> +		std::cout
>> +			<< "Processed " << framesCapture << " capture frames"
>> +			<< " and " << framesOutput << " output frames"
>> +			<< std::endl;
> 
> Maybe "Captured ... frames and output ... frames" ?

Sure.


> 
>> +
>> +		dev_->streamOff();
>> +		output_->streamOff();
>> +
>> +		if (secondMedia_)
>> +			secondMedia_->release();
> 
> You should free buffers on both devices (for the capture device likely
> in the base class).
Would you object to the destructor doing these things ? (as well?) as a
catch all?


>> +		delete output_;
>> +
>> +		V4L2DeviceTest::cleanup();
>> +	}
>> +};
>> +
>> +TEST_REGISTER(BufferSharingTest);
>> diff --git a/test/v4l2_device/meson.build b/test/v4l2_device/meson.build
>> index ec2c7f9f11ff..9f7a7545ac9b 100644
>> --- a/test/v4l2_device/meson.build
>> +++ b/test/v4l2_device/meson.build
>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ v4l2_device_tests = [
>>    [ 'request_buffers',    'request_buffers.cpp' ],
>>    [ 'stream_on_off',      'stream_on_off.cpp' ],
>>    [ 'capture_async',      'capture_async.cpp' ],
>> +  [ 'buffer_sharing',     'buffer_sharing.cpp' ],
>>  ]
>>  
>>  foreach t : v4l2_device_tests
> 

-- 
Regards
--
Kieran