Re: V4L2_PIX_FMT_RAW

From: "Daniel Glöckner" <daniel-gl@gmx.net>
To: "H. Willstrand" <h.willstrand@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux and Kernel Video <video4linux-list@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: V4L2_PIX_FMT_RAW
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:20:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080221012048.GA2924@daniel.bse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <175f5a0f0802201602i52187c1fxb2e980c7e86fcca6@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:02:39AM +0100, H. Willstrand wrote:
> What's the problem with having a name of the formalized data in the
> video stream? ie raw do not mean undefined.

I thought you wanted to avoid having to define V4L2_PIX_FMT_x for an
exploding number of proprietary formats that are quite similar but still
incompatible. It makes sense for formats that are used by more than one
driver.

> I don't see how separate RAW ioctl's will add value to the V4l2 API,
> it fits into the current API.

Yes, it does. Each driver having multiple raw formats just needs a
private control id to select one.

  Daniel

--
video4linux-list mailing list
Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list