From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from iodev.co.uk ([82.211.30.53]:34242 "EHLO iodev.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752805AbcEDXY5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 May 2016 19:24:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:24:48 -0300 From: Ismael Luceno To: Andrey Utkin Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Hans Verkuil Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] solo6x10: Set FRAME_BUF_SIZE to 200KB Message-ID: <20160504232446.GA17293@pirotess.lan> References: <1462378881-16625-1-git-send-email-ismael@iodev.co.uk> <20160504211444.GA23122@acer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160504211444.GA23122@acer> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/Mai/2016 00:14, Andrey Utkin wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:21:20PM -0300, Ismael Luceno wrote: > > From: Andrey Utkin > > > > Such frame size is met in practice. Also report oversized frames. > > > > [ismael: Reworked warning and commit message] > > > > Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno > > I object against merging the first part. > > > --- > > drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c | 7 +++++-- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c > > index 67a14c4..f98017b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c > > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ > > #include "solo6x10-jpeg.h" > > > > #define MIN_VID_BUFFERS 2 > > -#define FRAME_BUF_SIZE (196 * 1024) > > +#define FRAME_BUF_SIZE (200 * 1024) > > Please don't push this. > It doesn't matter whether there are 196 or 200 KiB because there happen > bigger frames. > I don't remember details so I cannot point to all time max frame size. > AFAIK this issue appeared on one particular customer installation. I > don't monitor it closely right now. I think I have compiled custom > package for that setup with FRAME_BUF_SIZE increased much more (maybe > 10x?). I don't quite remember the overscan, but the maximum should be around 1.2MB, so yes. If the QM hasn't been tweaked, then the image must be terrible.