On 22 September 2017 at 18:17, Hans Verkuil <hverk...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 22/09/17 18:31, Dave Stevenson wrote:
>> On 22 September 2017 at 12:00, Hans Verkuil <hverk...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> On 13/09/17 17:49, Dave Stevenson wrote:
>>>> OV5647
>>>>
>>>> v4l2-compliance SHA : f6ecbc90656815d91dc6ba90aac0ad8193a14b38
>>>>
>>>> Driver Info:
>>>> Driver name : unicam
>>>> Card type : unicam
>>>> Bus info : platform:unicam 3f801000.csi1
>>>> Driver version: 4.13.0
>>>> Capabilities : 0x85200001
>>>> Video Capture
>>>> Read/Write
>>>> Streaming
>>>> Extended Pix Format
>>>> Device Capabilities
>>>> Device Caps : 0x05200001
>>>> Video Capture
>>>> Read/Write
>>>> Streaming
>>>> Extended Pix Format
>>>>
>>>> Compliance test for device /dev/video0 (not using libv4l2):
>>>>
>>>> Required ioctls:
>>>> test VIDIOC_QUERYCAP: OK
>>>>
>>>> Allow for multiple opens:
>>>> test second video open: OK
>>>> test VIDIOC_QUERYCAP: OK
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S_PRIORITY: OK
>>>> test for unlimited opens: OK
>>>>
>>>> Debug ioctls:
>>>> test VIDIOC_DBG_G/S_REGISTER: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_LOG_STATUS: OK
>>>>
>>>> Input ioctls:
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S_TUNER/ENUM_FREQ_BANDS: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S_FREQUENCY: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_S_HW_FREQ_SEEK: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_ENUMAUDIO: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S/ENUMINPUT: OK
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S_AUDIO: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> Inputs: 1 Audio Inputs: 0 Tuners: 0
>>>>
>>>> Output ioctls:
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S_MODULATOR: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S_FREQUENCY: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_ENUMAUDOUT: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S/ENUMOUTPUT: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S_AUDOUT: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> Outputs: 0 Audio Outputs: 0 Modulators: 0
>>>>
>>>> Input/Output configuration ioctls:
>>>> test VIDIOC_ENUM/G/S/QUERY_STD: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_ENUM/G/S/QUERY_DV_TIMINGS: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_DV_TIMINGS_CAP: OK (Not Supported)
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S_EDID: OK (Not Supported)
>>>>
>>>> Test input 0:
>>>>
>>>> Control ioctls:
>>>> test VIDIOC_QUERY_EXT_CTRL/QUERYMENU: OK
>>>> test VIDIOC_QUERYCTRL: OK
>>>> test VIDIOC_G/S_CTRL: OK
>>>> fail: v4l2-test-controls.cpp(587): g_ext_ctrls does not
>>>> support count == 0
>>>
>>> Huh. The issue here is that there are no controls at all, but the
>>> control API is present. The class_check() function in v4l2-ctrls.c expects
>>> that there are controls and if not it returns -EINVAL, causing this test
>>> to fail.
>>>
>>> Try to apply this patch:
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verk...@cisco.com>
>>> ---
>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c
>>> b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c
>>> index dd1db678718c..4e53a8654690 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c
>>> @@ -2818,7 +2818,7 @@ static int prepare_ext_ctrls(struct v4l2_ctrl_handler
>>> *hdl,
>>> static int class_check(struct v4l2_ctrl_handler *hdl, u32 which)
>>> {
>>> if (which == 0 || which == V4L2_CTRL_WHICH_DEF_VAL)
>>> - return list_empty(&hdl->ctrl_refs) ? -EINVAL : 0;
>>> + return 0;
>>> return find_ref_lock(hdl, which | 1) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> and see if it will pass the compliance test. There may be other issues.
>>> I think that the compliance test should handle the case where there are no
>>> controls, so this is a good test.
>>
>> Fails.
>> fail: v4l2-test-controls.cpp(589): g_ext_ctrls worked even
>> when no controls are present
>> test VIDIOC_G/S/TRY_EXT_CTRLS: FAIL
>
> Try this patch:
>
> -----------------
> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-controls.cpp
> b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-controls.cpp
> index 7514459f..508daf05 100644
> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-controls.cpp
> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-controls.cpp
> @@ -585,8 +585,6 @@ int testExtendedControls(struct node *node)
> return ret;
> if (ret)
> return fail("g_ext_ctrls does not support count == 0\n");
> - if (node->controls.empty())
> - return fail("g_ext_ctrls worked even when no controls are
> present\n");
> if (ctrls.which)
> return fail("field which changed\n");
> if (ctrls.count)
> @@ -600,8 +598,6 @@ int testExtendedControls(struct node *node)
> return ret;
> if (ret)
> return fail("try_ext_ctrls does not support count == 0\n");
> - if (node->controls.empty())
> - return fail("try_ext_ctrls worked even when no controls are
> present\n");
> if (ctrls.which)
> return fail("field which changed\n");
> if (ctrls.count)
> @@ -687,6 +683,8 @@ int testExtendedControls(struct node *node)
> }
>
> ctrls.which = 0;
> + ctrls.count = 1;
> + ctrls.controls = &ctrl;
> ctrl.id = 0;
> ctrl.size = 0;
> ret = doioctl(node, VIDIOC_G_EXT_CTRLS, &ctrls);
> @@ -745,6 +743,9 @@ int testExtendedControls(struct node *node)
> if (ret)
> return fail("could not set all controls\n");
>
> + if (!which)
> + return 0;
> +
> ctrls.which = which;
> ret = doioctl(node, VIDIOC_G_EXT_CTRLS, &ctrls);
> if (ret && !multiple_classes)
Thanks Hans. That passes.
I'll leave you to work out the correct thing to apply for compliance,
and will fix the unicam driver in v4 to disable the control handler if
the subdevice registers no controls.
Dave
