From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: slongerbeam@gmail.com (Steve Longerbeam) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:12:29 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v6 00/39] i.MX Media Driver In-Reply-To: <20170330110249.GF7909@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> References: <1490661656-10318-1-git-send-email-steve_longerbeam@mentor.com> <20170330110249.GF7909@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/30/2017 04:02 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > This fails at step 1. The removal of the frame interval support now > means my setup script fails when trying to set the frame interval on > the camera: > > Enumerating pads and links > Setting up format SRGGB8_1X8 816x616 on pad imx219 0-0010/0 > Format set: SRGGB8_1X8 816x616 > Setting up frame interval 1/25 on pad imx219 0-0010/0 > Frame interval set: 1/25 > Setting up format SRGGB8_1X8 816x616 on pad imx6-mipi-csi2/0 > Format set: SRGGB8_1X8 816x616 > Setting up frame interval 1/25 on pad imx6-mipi-csi2/0 > Unable to set frame interval: Inappropriate ioctl for device (-25)Unable to setup formats: Inappropriate ioctl for device (25) > > This is because media-ctl tries to propagate it from the imx219 source > pad to the csi2 sink pad, and the csi2 now fails that ioctl. I assume you're using Philipp's frame interval patches to media-ctl. Can you make the frame interval propagation optional in those patches? I.e. don't error-out with a failure code if the ioctl returns ENOTTY. Steve > > This makes media-ctl return a failure code, which means that it's not > possible for a script to determine whether the failure was due to the > camera setup or something else. So, we have to assume that the > whole command failed. > > This is completely broken, and I'm even more convinced that those > arguing for this behaviour really have not thought it through well > enough before demanding that this code was removed. > > As far as I'm concerned, the end result is completely broken and > unusable. I'm going to be merging the frame interval support back > into my test tree, because that's the only sane thing to do. > > If v4l2 people want to object to having frame interval support present > for all subdevs, then _they_ need to make sure that the rest of their > software conforms to what they're telling people to do. >