Re: [PATCH v2] media: mediatek: vcodec: fix h264 cavlc bitstream fail

AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
2022-11-15T08:49:12Z

Il 15/11/22 03:00, Yunfei Dong (董云飞) ha scritto:
> Hi AngeloGioacchino,
>
> Thanks for your detail suggestion.
> On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 12:08 +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 18/10/22 13:41, Yunfei Dong ha scritto:
>>> Some cavlc bistream will decode fail when the frame size is small
>>> than
>>
>> s/small/smaller/g
>
> Will fix in next patch.
>>
>>> 20 bytes. Need to add pending data at the end of the bitstream.
>>>
>>> For the minimum size of mapped memory is 256 bytes(16x16), adding
>>> four bytes data
>>> won't lead to access unknown virtual memory.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 59fba9eed5a7 ("media: mediatek: vcodec: support stateless
>>> H.264 decoding for mt8192")
>>> Signed-off-by: Yunfei Dong <yunfei.dong@mediatek.com>
>>> ---
>>> compared with v1:
>>> - add detail comments for function: vdec_h264_insert_startcode.
>>> - re-write commit message.
>>> ---
>>> .../vcodec/vdec/vdec_h264_req_multi_if.c | 32
>>> +++++++++++++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/vdec/vdec_h264_req_multi_i
>>> f.c
>>> b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/vdec/vdec_h264_req_multi_i
>>> f.c
>>> index 4cc92700692b..18e048755d11 100644
>>> ---
>>> a/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/vdec/vdec_h264_req_multi_i
>>> f.c
>>> +++
>>> b/drivers/media/platform/mediatek/vcodec/vdec/vdec_h264_req_multi_i
>>> f.c
>>> @@ -539,6 +539,29 @@ static int vdec_h264_slice_core_decode(struct
>>> vdec_lat_buf *lat_buf)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void vdec_h264_insert_startcode(struct mtk_vcodec_dev
>>> *vcodec_dev, unsigned char *buf,
>>> + size_t *bs_size, struct
>>> mtk_h264_pps_param *pps)
>>> +{
>>> + struct device *dev = &vcodec_dev->plat_dev->dev;
>>> +
>>> + /* Need to add pending data at the end of bitstream when bs_sz
>>> is small than
>>> + * 20 bytes for cavlc bitstream, or lat will decode fail. This
>>> pending data is
>>> + * useful for mt8192 and mt8195 platform.
>>
>> What is the reason why other SoCs don't need this?
>>
> For the hardware not add this feature, and will add in the future Soc.
>>> + *
>>> + * cavlc bitstream when entropy_coding_mode_flag is false.
>>> + */
>>> + if (pps->entropy_coding_mode_flag || *bs_size > 20 ||
>>> + !(of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "mediatek,mt8192-
>>> vcodec-dec") ||
>>> + of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "mediatek,mt8195-
>>> vcodec-dec")))
>>
>> I'm not comfortable seeing of_device_is_compatible... this list will
>> grow whenever
>> a new SoC needing this appears.
>> Please think about a good name for a flag/quirk, or a bool, in the
>> platform data
>> for these two SoCs and use it.
>>
> For this feature only need to add in these two Socs, and won't grow
> anymore. So just want to use compatible to separate, not add one flags.
>
> So you think that using one flag to separate much better?
>

A flag is better: please remember that calls to of_device_is_compatible()
will perform a string comparison which, as you know, as much optimized as
it can be, it's always going to be slower than a simple integer/bool/flag
check.

This means that even for functional (not just cosmetic) reasons we should
not use of_device_is_compatible() here :-)

Cheers,
Angelo