Win Video Capture: add support for enumerating DirectShow WDM devices

Win Video Capture: add support for enumerating DirectShow WDM devices

DirectShow supports a certain type of Video Capture Cards, in general
video digitizers (a.k.a. Analog video capture cards). These cards need
extra configuration of the "remote" ports in and out. For this purpose,
the Windows Driver Model is used [1], where special DS Filters are 
added upstream of the capture source.

This CL adds support for enumerating these devices, which will show up
as another camera in the system list.

Other posterior CLs will figure out other parts needed, namely:

- which "normal" Filter is associated to the WDM Filter, for the
purpose of capabilities enumeration.

- if the VideoCaptureDevice::Name passed to VideoCaptureDeviceWin
is labelled as being WDM, a slightly different capture graph is
needed.


For the Hauppage USB-Live 2, this means another camera called
"Hauppauge Cx23100 Crossbar", in addition to the normal "Hauppauge
USB-Live2"


[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd373405(v=vs.85).aspx

BUG=402684
Committed: https://crrev.com/a4b9b88c1e96490c88fc801eedaf7eef513366d9
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#292627}

[mcasas, 2014-08-27 12:42:32]

mcasas@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ magjed@chromium.org, perkj@chromium.org

[mcasas, 2014-08-27 12:42:32]

magjed@, perkj@: PTAL

[magjed_chromium, 2014-08-27 13:05:27]

https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/1/media/video/capture/win/vide...
File media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/1/media/video/capture/win/vide...
media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc:121: return;
This return statement looks suspicious now when you are in a for loop. Is it
possible that DIRECT_SHOW fails, but DIRECT_SHOW_WDM does not? Maybe consider
switching to a continue statement instead?

[mcasas, 2014-08-27 13:29:52]

magjed@: PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/1/media/video/capture/win/vide...
File media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/1/media/video/capture/win/vide...
media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc:121: return;
On 2014/08/27 13:05:27, magjed wrote:
> This return statement looks suspicious now when you are in a for loop. Is it
> possible that DIRECT_SHOW fails, but DIRECT_SHOW_WDM does not? Maybe consider
> switching to a continue statement instead?

Done.

[magjed_chromium, 2014-08-27 13:44:08]

On 2014/08/27 13:29:52, mcasas wrote:
> magjed@: PTAL
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/1/media/video/capture/win/vide...
> File media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/1/media/video/capture/win/vide...
> media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc:121: return;
> On 2014/08/27 13:05:27, magjed wrote:
> > This return statement looks suspicious now when you are in a for loop. Is it
> > possible that DIRECT_SHOW fails, but DIRECT_SHOW_WDM does not? Maybe
consider
> > switching to a continue statement instead?
> 
> Done.

lgtm

[perkj_chrome, 2014-08-28 09:47:02]

lgtm %nit

If you dont' have a follow up cl where this type of devices can be used you
might want to wait with landing the enumeration until we do.

https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/40001/media/video/capture/win/...
File media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/40001/media/video/capture/win/...
media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc:404:
VideoCaptureDevice::Name::DIRECT_SHOW ||
nit  indentation

[mcasas, 2014-08-28 11:53:41]

perkj@ PTAL, used using as discussed.

https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/60001/media/video/capture/win/...
File media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/60001/media/video/capture/win/...
media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc:26: using Names =
media::VideoCaptureDevice::Names;
Comment: since Name is a nested class inside VCD,
this is the needed syntax.

[perkj_chrome, 2014-08-29 09:43:25]

On 2014/08/28 11:53:41, mcasas wrote:
> perkj@ PTAL, used using as discussed.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/60001/media/video/capture/win/...
> File media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/510723003/diff/60001/media/video/capture/win/...
> media/video/capture/win/video_capture_device_factory_win.cc:26: using Names =
> media::VideoCaptureDevice::Names;
> Comment: since Name is a nested class inside VCD,
> this is the needed syntax.

Still ok with me.

[mcasas, 2014-08-29 09:45:28]

The CQ bit was checked by mcasas@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-29 09:47:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mcasas@chromium.org/510723003/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-29 14:16:13]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001) as 15d4f9f8d071028320a04a386c42600591c9e147

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-09-10 03:08:26]

Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/a4b9b88c1e96490c88fc801eedaf7eef513366d9
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#292627}