[libcamera-devel] [RFC PATCH 3/5] libcamera: pipeline: Add readControls(), writeControl() interfaces
Laurent Pinchart
laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com
Fri Jun 7 18:19:43 CEST 2019
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 09:56:52PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> Pipeline handlers must implement functions to handle controls as part of
> their interface.
>
> Extend the pipeline handler interface to declare this requirement and
> implement basic control functionality in the currently supported
> PipelineHandlers
I don't think this should be exposed through the PipelineHandler API, it
should be handled inside each pipeline handler instead. You're calling
the readControls() and writeControls() methods of the pipeline handler
internally only in this patch, so it's effectively internal already.
> ---
> src/libcamera/include/pipeline_handler.h | 3 +
> src/libcamera/pipeline/ipu3/ipu3.cpp | 19 ++++
> src/libcamera/pipeline/raspberrypi.cpp | 108 ++++++++++++++++++-
> src/libcamera/pipeline/rkisp1/rkisp1.cpp | 19 ++++
> src/libcamera/pipeline/uvcvideo.cpp | 127 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> src/libcamera/pipeline/vimc.cpp | 19 ++++
> 6 files changed, 293 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/libcamera/include/pipeline_handler.h b/src/libcamera/include/pipeline_handler.h
> index 7da6df1ab2a0..4e306d964bff 100644
> --- a/src/libcamera/include/pipeline_handler.h
> +++ b/src/libcamera/include/pipeline_handler.h
> @@ -72,6 +72,9 @@ public:
> virtual int start(Camera *camera) = 0;
> virtual void stop(Camera *camera);
>
> + virtual int readControls(Camera *camera, Request *request) = 0;
> + virtual int writeControls(Camera *camera, Request *request) = 0;
> +
> virtual int queueRequest(Camera *camera, Request *request);
>
> bool completeBuffer(Camera *camera, Request *request, Buffer *buffer);
[snip]
> diff --git a/src/libcamera/pipeline/raspberrypi.cpp b/src/libcamera/pipeline/raspberrypi.cpp
> index d6749eaae759..337554501c82 100644
> --- a/src/libcamera/pipeline/raspberrypi.cpp
> +++ b/src/libcamera/pipeline/raspberrypi.cpp
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> #include "media_device.h"
> #include "pipeline_handler.h"
> #include "utils.h"
> +#include "v4l2_controls.h"
> #include "v4l2_device.h"
>
> namespace libcamera {
> @@ -77,6 +78,9 @@ public:
> int start(Camera *camera) override;
> void stop(Camera *camera) override;
>
> + int writeControls(Camera *camera, Request *request);
> + int readControls(Camera *camera, Request *request);
> +
> int queueRequest(Camera *camera, Request *request) override;
>
> bool match(DeviceEnumerator *enumerator) override;
> @@ -293,6 +297,94 @@ void PipelineHandlerRPi::stop(Camera *camera)
> PipelineHandler::stop(camera);
> }
>
> +int PipelineHandlerRPi::writeControls(Camera *camera, Request *request)
> +{
> + RPiCameraData *data = cameraData(camera);
> +
> + std::vector<V4L2Control *> controls;
> +
> + for (Control c : request->controls()) {
> + if (c.value().isWrite()) {
Would it make sense to split the read and write sets at the Request
level ?
> + switch (c.id()) {
> + case ManualGain:
> + break;
> + case ManualExposure:
> + break;
> + default:
> + LOG(RPI, Error)
> + << "Unhandled write control";
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Perhaps setControls could accept an empty vector/list as success? */
> + if (!controls.empty())
> + return data->unicam_->setControls(controls);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* This is becoming horrible. How can we improve this
> + * - Iterate reqeust controls to find controls to read
> + * - Add those to a new list
> + * - Query the device for that list to get controls
> + * - iterate returned list
> + * - For each control, search for corresponding control in request
> + * - Set control value to return value.
> + * - Return list.
> + * - Check for any values that were not updated?
> + */
> +int PipelineHandlerRPi::readControls(Camera *camera, Request *request)
> +{
> + RPiCameraData *data = cameraData(camera);
> + std::vector<unsigned int> controlIDs;
> + std::vector<V4L2Control *> controls;
> +
> + for (Control c : request->controls()) {
> + if (c.value().isRead()) {
> + LOG(RPI, Error) << "Read Control: " << c;
> +
> + switch (c.id()) {
> + case ManualGain:
> + controlIDs.push_back(V4L2_CID_ANALOGUE_GAIN);
> + break;
> + case ManualExposure:
> + controlIDs.push_back(V4L2_CID_EXPOSURE);
> + break;
> + default:
> + LOG(RPI, Error)
> + << "Unhandled write control";
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Perhaps setControls could accept an empty vector/list as success? */
> + if (controlIDs.empty())
> + return 0;
> +
> + controls = data->unicam_->getControls(controlIDs);
> + if (controls.empty())
> + return -ENODATA;
> +
> + for (V4L2Control *ctrl : controls) {
> + switch(ctrl->id()) {
> + case V4L2_CID_ANALOGUE_GAIN:
> + //Control gain(ManualGain); //= request->controls().find(ManualGain);
> + auto it = request->controls().find(ManualGain);
> + Control gain = *it;
> +
> + //V4L2IntControl *c = static_cast<V4L2IntControl *>(ctrl);
> + gain.value().set(0x88);
> +
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> int PipelineHandlerRPi::queueRequest(Camera *camera, Request *request)
> {
> RPiCameraData *data = cameraData(camera);
> @@ -304,7 +396,15 @@ int PipelineHandlerRPi::queueRequest(Camera *camera, Request *request)
> return -ENOENT;
> }
>
> - int ret = data->isp_.capture->queueBuffer(buffer);
> + /*
> + * Handle 'set' controls first
> + * Todo: Validate ordering and timing.
Handling timing will be interesting, as V4L2 controls are synchronous,
while buffers are not. I expect we'll need to evaluate when the buffer
will be captured, and set a timer accordingly to set controls (taking
into account the latencies of the capture pipeline).
> + */
> + int ret = writeControls(camera, request);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = data->isp_.capture->queueBuffer(buffer);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> @@ -394,6 +494,12 @@ void RPiCameraData::ispCaptureReady(Buffer *buffer)
> Request *request = queuedRequests_.front();
>
> pipe_->completeBuffer(camera_, request, buffer);
> +
> + int ret = pipe_->readControls(camera_, request);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + LOG(RPI, Error)
> + << "Failed to read controls. No way to pass error";
Should this be reflected in the request status ?
> +
> pipe_->completeRequest(camera_, request);
> }
>
[snip]
> diff --git a/src/libcamera/pipeline/uvcvideo.cpp b/src/libcamera/pipeline/uvcvideo.cpp
> index e2d02c0dafb8..216fbe237827 100644
> --- a/src/libcamera/pipeline/uvcvideo.cpp
> +++ b/src/libcamera/pipeline/uvcvideo.cpp
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> #include "media_device.h"
> #include "pipeline_handler.h"
> #include "utils.h"
> +#include "v4l2_controls.h"
> #include "v4l2_device.h"
>
> namespace libcamera {
> @@ -73,6 +74,9 @@ public:
> int start(Camera *camera) override;
> void stop(Camera *camera) override;
>
> + int readControls(Camera *camera, Request *request) override;
> + int writeControls(Camera *camera, Request *request) override;
> +
> int queueRequest(Camera *camera, Request *request) override;
>
> bool match(DeviceEnumerator *enumerator) override;
> @@ -252,6 +256,117 @@ void PipelineHandlerUVC::stop(Camera *camera)
> PipelineHandler::stop(camera);
> }
>
> +int PipelineHandlerUVC::writeControls(Camera *camera, Request *request)
> +{
> + UVCCameraData *data = cameraData(camera);
> +
> + std::vector<V4L2Control *> controls;
> +
> + for (Control c : request->controls()) {
> + if (c.value().isWrite()) {
> + switch (c.id()) {
> + case ManualBrightness:
> + controls.emplace_back(new V4L2IntControl(V4L2_CID_BRIGHTNESS, c.value().getInt()));
> + break;
> +
> + case IpaAwbEnable:
> + case ManualGain:
> + case ManualExposure:
> + break;
> + default:
> + LOG(UVC, Error)
> + << "Unhandled write control";
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Perhaps setControls could accept an empty vector/list as success? */
> + if (!controls.empty()) {
> + int ret = data->video_->setControls(controls);
> +
> + /* It would be nice to avoid the need to manually delete
> + * the controls */
Yes, this seems like a no-go to me.
> + for (V4L2Control *c : controls)
> + delete c;
> +
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int PipelineHandlerUVC::readControls(Camera *camera, Request *request)
> +{
> + UVCCameraData *data = cameraData(camera);
> + std::vector<unsigned int> controlIDs;
> + std::vector<V4L2Control *> controls;
> +
> + for (Control c : request->controls()) {
> + if (c.value().isRead()) {
> + LOG(UVC, Error) << "Read Control: " << c;
> +
> + switch (c.id()) {
> + case ManualBrightness:
> + controlIDs.push_back(V4L2_CID_BRIGHTNESS);
> + break;
> + case ManualGain:
> + controlIDs.push_back(V4L2_CID_ANALOGUE_GAIN);
> + break;
> + case ManualExposure:
> + controlIDs.push_back(V4L2_CID_EXPOSURE);
> + break;
> + default:
> + LOG(UVC, Error)
> + << "Unhandled write control";
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Perhaps setControls could accept an empty vector/list as success? */
> + if (controlIDs.empty())
> + return 0;
> +
> + controls = data->video_->getControls(controlIDs);
> + if (controls.empty())
> + return -ENODATA;
> +
> + for (V4L2Control *ctrl : controls) {
> + switch (ctrl->id()) {
> + case V4L2_CID_BRIGHTNESS: {
> + Control bright = *request->controls().find(ManualBrightness);
> + /* RFC:
> + * If the iterator doesn't find the control ^
> + * then it causes a segfault, so this is really nasty...
> + * and where just a map might be better - (ornot?) as it
> + * will create the object at that key.
> + * Now , that *shouldn't* happen (we should only look
> + * for controls that were given to us in this
> + * function ... but
auto iter = request->controls().find(ManualBrightness);
if (iter == request->controls().end())
...
> + */
> + V4L2IntControl *vc = static_cast<V4L2IntControl *>(ctrl);
> + bright.value().set(vc->value());
> +
> + LOG(UVC, Debug) << "Setting Brightness: " << bright;
> +
> + break;
> + }
> + case V4L2_CID_ANALOGUE_GAIN: {
> + Control gain = *request->controls().find(ManualGain);
> + V4L2IntControl *vc = static_cast<V4L2IntControl *>(ctrl);
> + gain.value().set(vc->value());
> + break;
> + }
> + default:
> + LOG(UVC, Warning) << "Unhandled V4L2 Control ID";
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> int PipelineHandlerUVC::queueRequest(Camera *camera, Request *request)
> {
> UVCCameraData *data = cameraData(camera);
> @@ -263,7 +378,11 @@ int PipelineHandlerUVC::queueRequest(Camera *camera, Request *request)
> return -ENOENT;
> }
>
> - int ret = data->video_->queueBuffer(buffer);
> + int ret = writeControls(camera, request);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = data->video_->queueBuffer(buffer);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> @@ -317,6 +436,12 @@ void UVCCameraData::bufferReady(Buffer *buffer)
> Request *request = queuedRequests_.front();
>
> pipe_->completeBuffer(camera_, request, buffer);
> +
> + int ret = pipe_->readControls(camera_, request);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + LOG(UVC, Error)
> + << "Failed to read controls. No way to pass error";
> +
> pipe_->completeRequest(camera_, request);
> }
>
[snip]
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
More information about the libcamera-devel
mailing list