Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] media: uapi: h264: Clarify our expectations regarding NAL header format

Paul Kocialkowski
2019-07-25T19:36:20Z

Hi,

On Thu 25 Jul 19, 08:42, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 19:16:18 +0200
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:40:03 -0300
> > Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@collabora.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Boris, Paul,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:28 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > Looks like some stateless decoders expect slices to be prefixed with
> > > > ANNEX B start codes (they most likely do some kind of bitstream parsing
> > > > and/or need that to delimit slices when doing per frame decoding).
> > > > Since skipping those start codes for dummy stateless decoders (those
> > > > expecting all params to be passed through controls) should be pretty
> > > > easy, let's mandate that all slices be prepended with ANNEX B start
> > > > codes.
> > > >
> > > > If we ever need to support AVC headers, we can add a new menu control
> > > > to select the type of NAL header to use.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > * Add Paul's R-b
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > * None
> > > > ---
> > > > Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/ext-ctrls-codec.rst | 1 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/ext-ctrls-codec.rst b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/ext-ctrls-codec.rst
> > > > index 7a1947f5be96..3ae1367806cf 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/ext-ctrls-codec.rst
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/ext-ctrls-codec.rst
> > > > @@ -1726,6 +1726,7 @@ enum v4l2_mpeg_video_h264_hierarchical_coding_type -
> > > > :ref:`h264`, section 7.4.3 "Slice Header Semantics". For further
> > > > documentation, refer to the above specification, unless there is
> > > > an explicit comment stating otherwise.
> > > > + All slices should be prepended with an ANNEX B start code.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Currently, the H264 slice V4L2_PIX_FMT_H264_SLICE_RAW,
> > > is specified to _not_ contain the ANNEX B start code.
> >
> > Yep, we should provably rename the format.
>
> Paul, are you okay with this rename?

Sorry for the very long response time here, I've had a hard time getting back
into the context of all this.

> s/V4L2_PIX_FMT_H264_SLICE_RAW/V4L2_PIX_FMT_H264_SLICE/
>
> or
>
> s/V4L2_PIX_FMT_H264_SLICE_RAW/V4L2_PIX_FMT_H264_SLICE_ANNEXB/

I'd be in favor of the former (V4L2_PIX_FMT_H264_SLICE) and passing offsets
to the beinning and after the start code. That would be more flexible, but one
downside could be decoders that some decoders only take a specific start code.

On the other hand I don't think that having one pixel format for each type of
start code would be very reasonable, so I'd rather see an offset for now and
perhaps a menu control later if needed to specify which types of start codes are
supported.

> I'd also to discuss some concerns Ezequiel and I have regarding this
> change. Some (most?) codec have alignment constraints on the buffer
> they pass to the HW. For HW that support Annex B parsing, that's no
> problem because the start of the buffer will be aligned on a page (I'm
> assuming page alignment should cover 99% of the alignment constraints).
> But HW that need to skip the start code will have to pass a non-aligned
> buffer (annex B start code is 3 byte long).
> Paul looked at the Cedrus driver and thinks it can be handled correctly
> thanks to the VE_H264_VLD_OFFSET field (which encodes an offset in bit),
> but I fear this might be a problem on other HW.
>
> So, I'm asking again, are we sure we want to handle the raw (no start
> code) and annex-b cases using the same pixel format? If we do, what's
> the plan to address those potential alignment constraints? Should
> we provide a way for userspace to define where the start-code ends so it
> can align things properly (annex B can be extended with extra 00
> bytes at the beginning)? If we do that, that means userspace has to
> know about those alignment constraints, or take something big enough.
> Another option would be to use a bounce buffer when things are not
> aligned properly.
>
> I'd really like to get feedback on those points before sending a v4.

Mhh I don't really know what would be best for handling that. Either way, I
don't see how more pixel formats would really help solve the issue, so I'm still
in favor of one.

Having a control that specifies an alignment constraint for the slice beginning
could work (as long as we make it optional, although userspace should be
required to abide by it when it is present).

I guess it's not such a high price to pay for a unified codec interface :)

Cheers,

Paul

--
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering