| Message ID | 20210226132932.165484-10-jacopo@jmondi.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series |
|
| Related | show |
Hi Jacopo, Thank you for the patch. On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:29:29PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > Platforms that do not provide a memory backend implementation should > keep using the maxJpegBufferSize() value to calculate the location where > to place the JPEG blob id, as the android_generic backend returns the > allocated buffer size as calculated using lseek which is larger than > the maximum JPEG frame size, which is where the framework expects the > JPEG blob to be placed. > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org> > --- > src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp | 14 +++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > index d6eeb962e81d..e7f66d66698c 100644 > --- a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > +++ b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > @@ -185,9 +185,17 @@ int PostProcessorJpeg::process(const FrameBuffer &source, > } > > /* Fill in the JPEG blob header. */ > - uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + > - destination->planeSize(0) - > - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); > + /* > + * \todo For backward compatibility reasons with the android_generic > + * memory backend, continue using the maxJpegBufferSize in case the > + * computed buffer size is larger. This can be dropped once all > + * supported platforms will have a working memory backend that > + * returns the correct buffer size. > + */ > + size_t blobSize = std::min<unsigned int>(cameraDevice_->maxJpegBufferSize(), > + destination->planeSize(0)); Can't Chrome OS allocate buffers larger than maxJpegBufferSize() ? In that case it would expect the JPEG blob to be at the end of the buffer, not after maxJpegBufferSize() bytes. I'm tempted to just drop this patch. If we want to keep it for other Android platforms, we'll need an additional function in CameraBuffer to report if the implementation has retrieved the size correctly. It's a bit of a hack, but this is a hack anyway :-) Up to you whether you prefer dropping the patch or keeping it with a new CameraBuffer function. > + uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + blobSize > + - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); > auto *blob = reinterpret_cast<struct camera3_jpeg_blob *>(resultPtr); > blob->jpeg_blob_id = CAMERA3_JPEG_BLOB_ID; > blob->jpeg_size = jpeg_size;
Hi Laurent, On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 08:48:32PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:29:29PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > Platforms that do not provide a memory backend implementation should > > keep using the maxJpegBufferSize() value to calculate the location where > > to place the JPEG blob id, as the android_generic backend returns the > > allocated buffer size as calculated using lseek which is larger than > > the maximum JPEG frame size, which is where the framework expects the > > JPEG blob to be placed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org> > > --- > > src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp | 14 +++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > index d6eeb962e81d..e7f66d66698c 100644 > > --- a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > +++ b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > @@ -185,9 +185,17 @@ int PostProcessorJpeg::process(const FrameBuffer &source, > > } > > > > /* Fill in the JPEG blob header. */ > > - uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + > > - destination->planeSize(0) - > > - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); > > + /* > > + * \todo For backward compatibility reasons with the android_generic > > + * memory backend, continue using the maxJpegBufferSize in case the > > + * computed buffer size is larger. This can be dropped once all > > + * supported platforms will have a working memory backend that > > + * returns the correct buffer size. > > + */ > > + size_t blobSize = std::min<unsigned int>(cameraDevice_->maxJpegBufferSize(), > > + destination->planeSize(0)); > > Can't Chrome OS allocate buffers larger than maxJpegBufferSize() ? In I don't think the real buffer size, as calculated through the correct memory backend could be larger than the maximum reported size. The purpose of the jpeg.MaxSize is to report the maximum allocation the camera framework has to perform to support the largest JPEG size, don't it ? This (seems) to only happen when the backend mis-calculate the buffer size and returns a value larger than jpeg.MaxSize > that case it would expect the JPEG blob to be at the end of the buffer, > not after maxJpegBufferSize() bytes. > > I'm tempted to just drop this patch. If we want to keep it for other > Android platforms, we'll need an additional function in CameraBuffer to > report if the implementation has retrieved the size correctly. It's a > bit of a hack, but this is a hack anyway :-) > > Up to you whether you prefer dropping the patch or keeping it with a new > CameraBuffer function. > > > + uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + blobSize > > + - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); > > auto *blob = reinterpret_cast<struct camera3_jpeg_blob *>(resultPtr); > > blob->jpeg_blob_id = CAMERA3_JPEG_BLOB_ID; > > blob->jpeg_size = jpeg_size; > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart
Hi Jacopo, On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 08:41:10AM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 08:48:32PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:29:29PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > > Platforms that do not provide a memory backend implementation should > > > keep using the maxJpegBufferSize() value to calculate the location where > > > to place the JPEG blob id, as the android_generic backend returns the > > > allocated buffer size as calculated using lseek which is larger than > > > the maximum JPEG frame size, which is where the framework expects the > > > JPEG blob to be placed. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org> > > > --- > > > src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp | 14 +++++++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > > index d6eeb962e81d..e7f66d66698c 100644 > > > --- a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > > +++ b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > > @@ -185,9 +185,17 @@ int PostProcessorJpeg::process(const FrameBuffer &source, > > > } > > > > > > /* Fill in the JPEG blob header. */ > > > - uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + > > > - destination->planeSize(0) - > > > - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); > > > + /* > > > + * \todo For backward compatibility reasons with the android_generic > > > + * memory backend, continue using the maxJpegBufferSize in case the > > > + * computed buffer size is larger. This can be dropped once all > > > + * supported platforms will have a working memory backend that > > > + * returns the correct buffer size. > > > + */ > > > + size_t blobSize = std::min<unsigned int>(cameraDevice_->maxJpegBufferSize(), > > > + destination->planeSize(0)); > > > > Can't Chrome OS allocate buffers larger than maxJpegBufferSize() ? In > > I don't think the real buffer size, as calculated through the correct > memory backend could be larger than the maximum reported size. The > purpose of the jpeg.MaxSize is to report the maximum allocation the > camera framework has to perform to support the largest JPEG size, > don't it ? Yes, but there's nothing that would preclude the camera service from allocating more, especially if the maximum JPEG size we report isn't page-aligned. The page alignment could be included in or could be left out from the buffer size as seen from the camera service, that's an implementation decision we can't control. That's why I'd prefer not depending on this assumption here. > This (seems) to only happen when the backend mis-calculate the buffer > size and returns a value larger than jpeg.MaxSize > > > that case it would expect the JPEG blob to be at the end of the buffer, > > not after maxJpegBufferSize() bytes. > > > > I'm tempted to just drop this patch. If we want to keep it for other > > Android platforms, we'll need an additional function in CameraBuffer to > > report if the implementation has retrieved the size correctly. It's a > > bit of a hack, but this is a hack anyway :-) > > > > Up to you whether you prefer dropping the patch or keeping it with a new > > CameraBuffer function. > > > > > + uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + blobSize > > > + - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); > > > auto *blob = reinterpret_cast<struct camera3_jpeg_blob *>(resultPtr); > > > blob->jpeg_blob_id = CAMERA3_JPEG_BLOB_ID; > > > blob->jpeg_size = jpeg_size;
Hi Laurent, On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 11:28:22AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 08:41:10AM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 08:48:32PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:29:29PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > > > Platforms that do not provide a memory backend implementation should > > > > keep using the maxJpegBufferSize() value to calculate the location where > > > > to place the JPEG blob id, as the android_generic backend returns the > > > > allocated buffer size as calculated using lseek which is larger than > > > > the maximum JPEG frame size, which is where the framework expects the > > > > JPEG blob to be placed. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org> > > > > --- > > > > src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp | 14 +++++++++++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > > > index d6eeb962e81d..e7f66d66698c 100644 > > > > --- a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > > > +++ b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > > > @@ -185,9 +185,17 @@ int PostProcessorJpeg::process(const FrameBuffer &source, > > > > } > > > > > > > > /* Fill in the JPEG blob header. */ > > > > - uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + > > > > - destination->planeSize(0) - > > > > - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); > > > > + /* > > > > + * \todo For backward compatibility reasons with the android_generic > > > > + * memory backend, continue using the maxJpegBufferSize in case the > > > > + * computed buffer size is larger. This can be dropped once all > > > > + * supported platforms will have a working memory backend that > > > > + * returns the correct buffer size. > > > > + */ > > > > + size_t blobSize = std::min<unsigned int>(cameraDevice_->maxJpegBufferSize(), > > > > + destination->planeSize(0)); > > > > > > Can't Chrome OS allocate buffers larger than maxJpegBufferSize() ? In > > > > I don't think the real buffer size, as calculated through the correct > > memory backend could be larger than the maximum reported size. The > > purpose of the jpeg.MaxSize is to report the maximum allocation the > > camera framework has to perform to support the largest JPEG size, > > don't it ? > > Yes, but there's nothing that would preclude the camera service from > allocating more, especially if the maximum JPEG size we report isn't > page-aligned. The page alignment could be included in or could be left And that's what happen at the moment with the generic backend. The size computed through it is larger, but android wants the JPEG_BLOB_ID at the end of maxJpegBufferSize(). When using the correct backend I always get a size smaller than the max jpeg one. > out from the buffer size as seen from the camera service, that's an > implementation decision we can't control. That's why I'd prefer not > depending on this assumption here. > How it works exactly and where the camera service expects the blob id to be in case the buffer size gets past the max size, I cannot tell. What's the alternative solution ? Provide a method in the CameraBuffer that says "yes, I'm reliable" and if not fall-back on the maxJpegBufferSize ? That's two bad hacks competing for the one being less nasty, I don't see a nice way to get away with this tbh. > > This (seems) to only happen when the backend mis-calculate the buffer > > size and returns a value larger than jpeg.MaxSize > > > > > that case it would expect the JPEG blob to be at the end of the buffer, > > > not after maxJpegBufferSize() bytes. > > > > > > I'm tempted to just drop this patch. If we want to keep it for other > > > Android platforms, we'll need an additional function in CameraBuffer to > > > report if the implementation has retrieved the size correctly. It's a > > > bit of a hack, but this is a hack anyway :-) > > > > > > Up to you whether you prefer dropping the patch or keeping it with a new > > > CameraBuffer function. > > > > > > > + uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + blobSize > > > > + - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); > > > > auto *blob = reinterpret_cast<struct camera3_jpeg_blob *>(resultPtr); > > > > blob->jpeg_blob_id = CAMERA3_JPEG_BLOB_ID; > > > > blob->jpeg_size = jpeg_size; > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart
Hi Jacopo, On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 10:47:04AM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 11:28:22AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 08:41:10AM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 08:48:32PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 02:29:29PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > > > > Platforms that do not provide a memory backend implementation should > > > > > keep using the maxJpegBufferSize() value to calculate the location where > > > > > to place the JPEG blob id, as the android_generic backend returns the > > > > > allocated buffer size as calculated using lseek which is larger than > > > > > the maximum JPEG frame size, which is where the framework expects the > > > > > JPEG blob to be placed. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp | 14 +++++++++++--- > > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > > > > index d6eeb962e81d..e7f66d66698c 100644 > > > > > --- a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > > > > +++ b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp > > > > > @@ -185,9 +185,17 @@ int PostProcessorJpeg::process(const FrameBuffer &source, > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > /* Fill in the JPEG blob header. */ > > > > > - uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + > > > > > - destination->planeSize(0) - > > > > > - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * \todo For backward compatibility reasons with the android_generic > > > > > + * memory backend, continue using the maxJpegBufferSize in case the > > > > > + * computed buffer size is larger. This can be dropped once all > > > > > + * supported platforms will have a working memory backend that > > > > > + * returns the correct buffer size. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + size_t blobSize = std::min<unsigned int>(cameraDevice_->maxJpegBufferSize(), > > > > > + destination->planeSize(0)); By the way this should be bufferSize, not blobSize. > > > > > > > > Can't Chrome OS allocate buffers larger than maxJpegBufferSize() ? In > > > > > > I don't think the real buffer size, as calculated through the correct > > > memory backend could be larger than the maximum reported size. The > > > purpose of the jpeg.MaxSize is to report the maximum allocation the > > > camera framework has to perform to support the largest JPEG size, > > > don't it ? > > > > Yes, but there's nothing that would preclude the camera service from > > allocating more, especially if the maximum JPEG size we report isn't > > page-aligned. The page alignment could be included in or could be left > > And that's what happen at the moment with the generic backend. The > size computed through it is larger, but android wants the JPEG_BLOB_ID > at the end of maxJpegBufferSize(). Android wants the blob at the end of the buffer, and that could be different (either smaller, as we've seen, or larger) than maxJpegBufferSize() as nothing in the API guarantees that the buffer size will always be smaller than or equal to maxJpegBufferSize(). I'd rather not make any assumption here, we've been bitten by incorrect assumptions before :-S > When using the correct backend I always get a size smaller than the > max jpeg one. That's something I'd like to understand too (if the framework gives us a buffer smaller than the maximum JPEG size we report, there's a risk the JPEG image wouldn't fit - it's theoretical, we report a random estimate, but the principle still holds) but it's a separate issue. > > out from the buffer size as seen from the camera service, that's an > > implementation decision we can't control. That's why I'd prefer not > > depending on this assumption here. > > How it works exactly and where the camera service expects the blob id > to be in case the buffer size gets past the max size, I cannot tell. > > What's the alternative solution ? Provide a method in the CameraBuffer > that says "yes, I'm reliable" and if not fall-back on the > maxJpegBufferSize ? That's two bad hacks competing for the one being > less nasty, I don't see a nice way to get away with this tbh. That's the part that bothers me too. All this is meant to be temporary, so I suppose we could live with this, but I'm worried the temporary code will stay for some time, and result in a breakage on platforms that have a real backend when they'll give us a buffer larger than maxJpegBufferSize(), for any reason. One option that may be a tiny bit cleaner would be to introduce a new jpegBlobOffset() function in CameraBuffer, to return the offset of the blob. At least the name would be better than "isReliable()" :-) > > > This (seems) to only happen when the backend mis-calculate the buffer > > > size and returns a value larger than jpeg.MaxSize > > > > > > > that case it would expect the JPEG blob to be at the end of the buffer, > > > > not after maxJpegBufferSize() bytes. > > > > > > > > I'm tempted to just drop this patch. If we want to keep it for other > > > > Android platforms, we'll need an additional function in CameraBuffer to > > > > report if the implementation has retrieved the size correctly. It's a > > > > bit of a hack, but this is a hack anyway :-) > > > > > > > > Up to you whether you prefer dropping the patch or keeping it with a new > > > > CameraBuffer function. > > > > > > > > > + uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + blobSize > > > > > + - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); > > > > > auto *blob = reinterpret_cast<struct camera3_jpeg_blob *>(resultPtr); > > > > > blob->jpeg_blob_id = CAMERA3_JPEG_BLOB_ID; > > > > > blob->jpeg_size = jpeg_size;
diff --git a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp index d6eeb962e81d..e7f66d66698c 100644 --- a/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp +++ b/src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp @@ -185,9 +185,17 @@ int PostProcessorJpeg::process(const FrameBuffer &source, } /* Fill in the JPEG blob header. */ - uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + - destination->planeSize(0) - - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); + /* + * \todo For backward compatibility reasons with the android_generic + * memory backend, continue using the maxJpegBufferSize in case the + * computed buffer size is larger. This can be dropped once all + * supported platforms will have a working memory backend that + * returns the correct buffer size. + */ + size_t blobSize = std::min<unsigned int>(cameraDevice_->maxJpegBufferSize(), + destination->planeSize(0)); + uint8_t *resultPtr = destination->plane(0) + blobSize + - sizeof(struct camera3_jpeg_blob); auto *blob = reinterpret_cast<struct camera3_jpeg_blob *>(resultPtr); blob->jpeg_blob_id = CAMERA3_JPEG_BLOB_ID; blob->jpeg_size = jpeg_size;
Platforms that do not provide a memory backend implementation should keep using the maxJpegBufferSize() value to calculate the location where to place the JPEG blob id, as the android_generic backend returns the allocated buffer size as calculated using lseek which is larger than the maximum JPEG frame size, which is where the framework expects the JPEG blob to be placed. Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org> --- src/android/jpeg/post_processor_jpeg.cpp | 14 +++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)