[PATCH v2 2/2] libcamera: camera_manager: Add environment variable to order pipelines match
Jacopo Mondi
jacopo.mondi at ideasonboard.com
Fri Mar 22 09:50:17 CET 2024
Hi Julien
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 08:26:06PM +0100, Julien Vuillaumier wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> Your comments will be integrated in v3.
>
> But I have a couple of questions to confirm I have the correct
> understanding.
>
> Thank you,
> Julien
>
> On 20/03/2024 13:53, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this email' button
> >
> >
> > Hi Julien
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 12:00:56PM +0100, Julien Vuillaumier wrote:
> > > To match the enumerated media devices, each pipeline handler registered
> >
> > s/pipeline handler registered/registered pipeline handler/
> >
> > > is used in no specific order. It is a limitation when several pipelines
> > > can match the devices, and user has to select a specific pipeline.
> > >
> > > For this purpose, environment variable LIBCAMERA_PIPELINES_MATCH_LIST is
> > > created that gives the option to define an ordered list of pipelines
> >
> > s/that gives/to give/
> >
> > > to invoke during the match process.
> >
> > Or just: "to match on."
> >
> > >
> > > LIBCAMERA_PIPELINES_MATCH_LIST="<name1>[,<name2>[,<name3>...]]]"
> > >
> > > Example:
> > > LIBCAMERA_PIPELINES_MATCH_LIST="PipelineHandlerRkISP1,SimplePipelineHandler"
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Julien Vuillaumier <julien.vuillaumier at nxp.com>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/environment_variables.rst | 5 ++
> > > include/libcamera/internal/camera_manager.h | 1 +
> > > src/libcamera/camera_manager.cpp | 57 ++++++++++++++++-----
> > > 3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/environment_variables.rst b/Documentation/environment_variables.rst
> > > index a9b230bc..ea4da3c9 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/environment_variables.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/environment_variables.rst
> > > @@ -37,6 +37,11 @@ LIBCAMERA_IPA_MODULE_PATH
> > >
> > > Example value: ``${HOME}/.libcamera/lib:/opt/libcamera/vendor/lib``
> > >
> > > +LIBCAMERA_PIPELINES_MATCH_LIST
> > > + Define an ordered list of pipeline names to be used to match the media devices in the system.
> >
> > long line over 80 cols which could eaily be broken in 2 lines
> >
> > > +
> > > + Example value: ``PipelineHandlerRkISP1,SimplePipelineHandler``
> >
> > These are the names of the PipelineHandlers classes, which is fine,
> > but maybe for users it is better to use something they can more easily
> > reference, like the meson option associated with the pipeline ?
> >
> > This will require a map though...
>
> As of today the pipeline name, defined as PipelineHandler class name, is
> presented to the user (log=DEBUG), during the match procedure:
> "Found registered pipeline handler <xyz>"
> "Pipeline handler <xyz> matched"
>
> Thus, reusing that same name to define the ordered list of pipelines for the
> match seemed fairly consistent.
>
Yes, it's consistent indeed
> But agreed, PipelineHandler names could be simpler. Currently, apart from
I'm just a bit concerned about the fact users should either inspect
the code or debug logs, while using something like the meson option is
easier to access ?
> those logs during match, pipeline name looks to be used only in an ipa
> interface test.
> If deemed useful, we could change the current names of each PipelineHandler
> to replace the class name, as you suggested, by the meson option name
> associated with that pipeline.
No wait, I was suggesting using the meson option to populate the
LIBCAMERA_PIPELINES_MATCH_LIST env variable.
>
> A simple way of doing that would be adding to the existing
> REGISTER_PIPELINE_HANDLER(handler) a parameter 'name' to be passed to
> PipelineHandlerFactory constructor, instead of the stringified class name.
> Registration of each existing pipelines would need to be updated
> accordingly.
>
> Do you recommend changing PipelineHandler name used in the context of that
> change?
> In that case, does the above proposal (add a short name to the register
> macro) makes sense?
>
Maybe I'm just over-concerned. A way out could be to expand the env
variable description to clearly indicate what identifiers to use as
pipeline handler names. Something like:
LIBCAMERA_PIPELINES_MATCH_LIST
Define an ordered list of pipeline handlers to be used to match the media
devices in the system. The pipeline handler names used to populate
the variable are the ones passed to the the
REGISTER_PIPELINE_HANDLER() macro in the source code.
Example value: ``PipelineHandlerRkISP1,SimplePipelineHandler``
Alternatively what I was proposing was to use the identifiers for
the 'pipelines' meson option
option('pipelines',
type : 'array',
value : ['auto'],
choices : [
'all',
'auto',
'imx8-isi',
'ipu3',
'rkisp1',
'rpi/vc4',
'simple',
'uvcvideo',
'vimc'
],
LIBCAMERA_PIPELINES_MATCH_LIST=``rkisp1,simple,imx8-isi``
and keep a map in CameraManager class, but this indeed requires more
maintainership.
Now that I wrote this, isn't it easier to just compile only the
pipeline handler you need ? I presume this doesn't apply to generic
distro though
> > > +
> > > LIBCAMERA_RPI_CONFIG_FILE
> > > Define a custom configuration file to use in the Raspberry Pi pipeline handler.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/libcamera/internal/camera_manager.h b/include/libcamera/internal/camera_manager.h
> > > index 33ebe069..c57e509a 100644
> > > --- a/include/libcamera/internal/camera_manager.h
> > > +++ b/include/libcamera/internal/camera_manager.h
> > > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ private:
> > > int init();
> > > void createPipelineHandlers();
> > > void cleanup() LIBCAMERA_TSA_EXCLUDES(mutex_);
> > > + void pipelineFactoryMatch(const PipelineHandlerFactoryBase *factory);
> >
> > Please move this one line up to match the function definition order in
> > the .cpp file
> >
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * This mutex protects
> > > diff --git a/src/libcamera/camera_manager.cpp b/src/libcamera/camera_manager.cpp
> > > index 355f3ada..620be1c8 100644
> > > --- a/src/libcamera/camera_manager.cpp
> > > +++ b/src/libcamera/camera_manager.cpp
> > > @@ -99,13 +99,36 @@ int CameraManager::Private::init()
> > >
> > > void CameraManager::Private::createPipelineHandlers()
> > > {
> > > - CameraManager *const o = LIBCAMERA_O_PTR();
> > > -
> > > /*
> > > * \todo Try to read handlers and order from configuration
> > > - * file and only fallback on all handlers if there is no
> > > - * configuration file.
> > > + * file and only fallback on environment variable or all handlers, if
> > > + * there is no configuration file.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * When a list of preferred pipelines is defined, iterate through the
> > > + * ordered list to match the devices enumerated.
> >
> > s/devices enumerated/enumerated devices/
> >
> > > + * Otherwise, device matching is done in no specific order with each
> > > + * registered pipeline handler.
> > > */
> >
> > What about moving this comment block in the below if (pipesList)
> > branch ?
> >
> > > + const char *pipesList =
> > > + utils::secure_getenv("LIBCAMERA_PIPELINES_MATCH_LIST");
> > > + if (pipesList) {
> > > + for (const auto &pipeName : utils::split(pipesList, ",")) {
> > > + const PipelineHandlerFactoryBase *factory;
> > > + factory = PipelineHandlerFactoryBase::getFactoryByName(pipeName);
> > > + if (!factory)
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + LOG(Camera, Debug)
> > > + << "Found listed pipeline handler '"
> > > + << pipeName << "'";
> > > + pipelineFactoryMatch(factory);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > const std::vector<PipelineHandlerFactoryBase *> &factories =
> > > PipelineHandlerFactoryBase::factories();
> > >
> > > @@ -117,15 +140,25 @@ void CameraManager::Private::createPipelineHandlers()
> > > * Try each pipeline handler until it exhaust
> > > * all pipelines it can provide.
> > > */
> > > - while (1) {
> > > - std::shared_ptr<PipelineHandler> pipe = factory->create(o);
> > > - if (!pipe->match(enumerator_.get()))
> > > - break;
> > > + pipelineFactoryMatch(factory);
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > >
> > > - LOG(Camera, Debug)
> > > - << "Pipeline handler \"" << factory->name()
> > > - << "\" matched";
> > > - }
> > > +void CameraManager::Private::pipelineFactoryMatch(const PipelineHandlerFactoryBase *factory)
> > > +{
> > > + CameraManager *const o = LIBCAMERA_O_PTR();
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Provide as many matching pipelines as possible
> > > + */
> >
> > Fits on a single line
> >
> > Also, I would
> > /* Match all the registed pipeline handlers. */
> >
> > > + while (1) {
> > > + std::shared_ptr<PipelineHandler> pipe = factory->create(o);
> > > + if (!pipe->match(enumerator_.get()))
> > > + break;
> > > +
> > > + LOG(Camera, Debug)
> > > + << "Pipeline handler \"" << factory->name()
> > > + << "\" matched";
> > > }
> > > }
> >
> > Overall, I concur this is an useful addition. I know there are ideas
> > about assigning a priority to pipeline handlers at creation time as
> > currently the only conflict is on the ISI which can be
> > matched both by the imx8-isi pipeline and the simple pipeline.
>
> As you mentioned, imx8-isi and simple pipelines are concurrent. With imx9
> family, there is an additional cause of concurrency as platforms can/will
> use topologies with both ISI + ISP. And depending on the use case, user may
> want to use either simple, or imx8-isi or the isi+isp pipeline.
>
> This change is a basic way to dynamically assign relative priorities to the
> pipelines. It was suggested in v1 review comments to also have a similar
> configuration possible from a global config file.
>
> >
> > For the time being, with the above issues fixed
> > Reviewed-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi at ideasonboard.com>
> >
> > Thanks
> > j
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
>
More information about the libcamera-devel
mailing list