On Tue 3 July 2012 22:35:54 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em 03-07-2012 13:47, Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> > On Tue July 3 2012 18:01:51 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> Em 03-07-2012 04:19, Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> >>> On Mon 2 July 2012 19:42:33 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>>> Em 02-07-2012 11:15, Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> >>>>> From: Hans Verkuil <hans.verk...@cisco.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Add a new ioctl to enumerate the supported frequency bands of a tuner.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verk...@cisco.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> include/linux/videodev2.h | 36
> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/videodev2.h b/include/linux/videodev2.h
> >>>>> index f79d0cc..d54ec6e 100644
> >>>>> --- a/include/linux/videodev2.h
> >>>>> +++ b/include/linux/videodev2.h
> >>>>> @@ -2048,6 +2048,7 @@ struct v4l2_modulator {
> >>>>> #define V4L2_TUNER_CAP_RDS 0x0080
> >>>>> #define V4L2_TUNER_CAP_RDS_BLOCK_IO 0x0100
> >>>>> #define V4L2_TUNER_CAP_RDS_CONTROLS 0x0200
> >>>>> +#define V4L2_TUNER_CAP_FREQ_BANDS 0x0400
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /* Flags for the 'rxsubchans' field */
> >>>>> #define V4L2_TUNER_SUB_MONO 0x0001
> >>>>> @@ -2066,19 +2067,30 @@ struct v4l2_modulator {
> >>>>> #define V4L2_TUNER_MODE_LANG1_LANG2 0x0004
> >>>>>
> >>>>> struct v4l2_frequency {
> >>>>> - __u32 tuner;
> >>>>> - __u32 type; /* enum v4l2_tuner_type */
> >>>>> - __u32 frequency;
> >>>>> - __u32 reserved[8];
> >>>>> + __u32 tuner;
> >>>>> + __u32 type; /* enum v4l2_tuner_type */
> >>>>> + __u32 frequency;
> >>>>> + __u32 reserved[8];
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +struct v4l2_frequency_band {
> >>>>> + __u32 tuner;
> >>>>> + __u32 type; /* enum v4l2_tuner_type */
> >>>>> + __u32 index;
> >>>>> + __u32 capability;
> >>>>> + __u32 rangelow;
> >>>>> + __u32 rangehigh;
> >>>>> + __u8 name[32];
> >>>>
> >>>> As we've discussed, band name can be inferred from the frequency.
> >>>> Also, there are more than one name for the same band (it could be
> >>>> named based on the wavelength or frequency - also, some bands or
> >>>> band segments may have special names, like Tropical Wave).
> >>>> Let's userspace just call it whatever it wants. So, I'll just
> >>>> drop it.
> >>>
> >>> That will lead to chaos IMHO: one application will call it one thing,
> >>> the other something else. Since the frequency band boundaries will
> >>> generally be slightly different between different products it is even
> >>> not so easy to map a frequency to a particular name. Not to mention
> >>> the simple fact that most apps will only ever see FM since the number of
> >>> products that support other bands is very, very small.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, an application can just print the frequency range and use that
> >>> as the name, but how many end-users would know how to interpret that as
> >>> FM or AM MW, etc.? Very few indeed.
> >>
> >> AM or FM can be retrieved from a modulation field. The band range is:
> >> 1) Country-dependent, e. g. they're defined by the regulator's
> >> agency on each Country and standardized on ITU-R;
> >>
> >> 2) Per-country regulatory restrictions may apply, as it may be
> >> illegal or it may be required an special license to operate outside the
> >> public services range. Some of the supported devices for can be used
> >> at the amateur radio range
> >>
> >> 3) requires locale support. For example, in Brazil:
> >> short wave is OC
> >> medium wave is OM
> >> part of the OC band is called Tropical wave
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Devices with dual TV/FM tuners allows a band that it is larger than
> >> SW+MW+LW.
> >> How would you call such band?
> >>
> >> What I'm saying is that an application that would properly implement radio
> >> support will need to have a per-Country regulatory data, in order to name
> >> a band, using the Country's denomination for that band.
> >>
> >> It is not a Kernel's task to keep such database. It may be added on a
> >> library,
> >> through.
> >>
> >>>> On the other hand, the modulation is independent on the band, and
> >>>> ITU-R and regulator agencies may allow more than one modulation type
> >>>> and usage for the same frequency (like primary and secondary usage).
> >>>
> >>> But the actual tuner/demod in question will support only one modulation
> >>> type per frequency range. It's not something you can change in our API. So
> >>> what's the use of such a modulation type? What would an application do
> >>> with
> >>> it? I want to avoid adding a field for which there is no practical use.
> >>
> >> Devices like bttv and cx88 with a TV/FM tuner allow at least 2 modulation
> >> types:
> >> FM and SDR (Software Delivered Radio), as the internal RISC processor can
> >> deliver
> >> the IF samples though the DMA engine, allowing demodulation in userspace.
> >>
> >>> This API is used to show a combobox or similar to the end-user allowing
> >>> him/her
> >>> to select a frequency band that the radio application will use. So you
> >>> need
> >>> human-readable names for the frequency bands that are understandable for
> >>> your average human being. Frequency ranges or talk about ITU standards are
> >>> NOT suitable for that.
> >>
> >> It is not a Kernel's task to present a combobox. Also, converting the radio
> >> band names into a combobox will require converting the band names into
> >> locale
> >> data, with is more complex, less portable than to compare the band ranges
> >> with
> >> the ITU-R tables.
> >>
> >> That's said, let's suppose an application that would allow to select
> >> between:
> >> - FM Europe/America;
> >> - FM Japan;
> >> - FM Russia
> >>
> >> And let's suppose 2 different drivers:
> >> - driver 1: bttv + TV/FM tuner - band from 56 MHz to 165 MHz;
> >> - driver 2: tea5767 - japan band from 76 to 108 MHz;
> >> european band from 87.5 to 108 MHz;
> >>
> >> For driver 1, the band will be bigger than all 3 FM ranges. Userspace will
> >> need
> >> to use S_TUNER to adjust the single band to the selected one, or to prevent
> >> using a frequency outside band;
> >>
> >> For driver 2, for euro band, it can just select the second band. However,
> >> for
> >> band 1, it will need to use S_TUNER to restrict the maximum frequency to
> >> 90 MHz,
> >> in order to match the regulatory band.
> >>
> >> So, whatever "name" would be used, the userspace will need to know what
> >> are the
> >> regulatory standards and use some logic to make sure that the proper band
> >> will
> >> be used.
> >>
> >> Of course, as such logic is common for all radio applications, it makes
> >> sense to
> >> add it into a radio v4l-utils library.
> >>
> >>> Prior to me becoming involved in this discussion the only names I would
> >>> have
> >>> understood are FM and AM SW/MW/LW and I would have no idea what the
> >>> frequency
> >>> ranges for the AM bands were.
> >>
> >> Well, the sort wave range is actually 15 bands, each with their own
> >> regulations.
> >> For example, In Brazil, SW is used by broadcast and amateur radio. For
> >> amateur
> >> radio, those are the used ranges:
> >> 160m, 80m, 40m, 30m, 20m, 17m, 15m, 12m, 10m
> >>
> >> In summary, band names can't be properly represented in Kernel, as this is
> >> not
> >> a trivial issue, nor Kernel should bother about localized names or
> >> per-Country
> >> data.
> >
> > You clearly have way too much knowledge on this topic :-)
>
> :)
>
> > OK, name is out, a modulation field is in.
> >
> > This promptly leads to the next problem: there is no modulation field in
> > v4l2_tuner,
> > so what to do for existing drivers.
> >
> > It makes sense to have the tuner capability field be a union of the caps of
> > all bands,
> > but you can't do the same for a modulation field (unless you make it a
> > bitfield, but
> > that's just weird IMHO).
>
> Well, DVB exposes modulation as caps. Not sure if this is the best thing to
> do there,
> but it could make sense to have something like:
> HAVE_AM
> HAVE_FM
> HAVE_SDR
> HAVE_VSB
> ...
>
> for modulation caps.
Can we have a (hopefully short) irc discussion today? I'd really like to get
this API
finalized.
>
> >
> > So perhaps we should add compat code like what I suggested earlier in a
> > private email
> > where, if no enum_freq_bands op is defined but g_tuner is, then the core
> > will provide
> > a enum_freq_bands version that uses the caps/rangelow/high from g_tuner and
> > that can
> > fill in the modulation type based on the video node (i.e. if called from
> > radio, then
> > the modulation is FM, else VSB).
>
> That would be an alternative. I don't have a strong opinion here, but I think
> that
> modulation caps could work better, IMHO.
>
> > This is true for all currently available drivers, except for radio-cadet.
> > But the
> > latter will be updated with proper enum_freq_bands support, so it won't use
> > the
> > compat code.
> >
> > As a result of this, an application can always find the modulation of a
> > particular
> > frequency band by calling VIDIOC_ENUM_FREQ_BANDS.
> >
> > Note that for the sake of brevity I'm ignoring the modulator in this
> > discussion, but
> > the same principle applies there.
> >
> > BTW, if I understand it correctly SDR isn't a modulation type as such, it's
> > the raw
> > output from the tuner and it is up to the software to decide whether to
> > demodulate
> > as FM or AM (in the case of analog radio), right?
>
> Yes.
In that case, shouldn't SDR be signalled as a tuner capability? It's not a
modulator
as such. If set, then you can read from the radio device to get the raw samples.
This assumes that the SDR capability and the RDS_BLOCK_IO capability are
mutually exclusive.
Or at the very least that RDS is disabled if the SDR functionality is enabled
and vice
versa.
> > Although in practice I expect it to be obvious what should be used.
>
> Some bands could allow more than one modulation type. FYI, regulatory
> agencies define
> two types of usage for a frequency band: a "primary usage" and a "secondary
> usage".
>
> Being simplistic, primary usage is generally for public or government
> services. Secondary
> usage is generally for personal/private usage. The usages that don't require
> special
> licenses to transmit (like wifi) are secondary usage. Remote-controlled toys
> and walk talks
> at 27MHz range is an example of such secondary usage. AFAIKT, several of
> those devices use FM
> modulation, but AM may also be used on those devices.
>
> An SDR implementation may decode either AM or FM (or it could also decode
> other types,
> like SSB - used on several amateur radio bands).
Based on this I am inclined to go with a bitfield. If the tuner supports only
SDR, then
the bitfield is 0 (since it is software that decides the demodulation). If
there are one
or more hardware demodulators, then the appropriate flags are set. Right now
there is
only one hardware demodulator per frequency band but future hardware may have
more.
I still don't think it is a good idea to add the same modulation field to
v4l2_tuner:
leave that to v4l2_frequency_band. A modulation field in v4l2_tuner should
instead be
used to select what demodulation to use if there are more hardware
demodulators. We
don't have that at the moment, so I think we shouldn't add it yet.
So my current proposal is: use a bitfield in v4l2_frequency_band to describe
possible
(de)modulators and add compat code to the v4l2-ioctl.c to automatically create a
vidioc_enum_freq_bands op if no such op was supplied, using the data from
g_tuner or
g_modulator and which device node was used to fill in the fields.
Regards,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
