Re: [GIT PULL] ViewCast O820E capture support added

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>]

Em 13-09-2012 20:19, Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu:
> Em Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:48:52 -0400
> Steven Toth <stoth@kernellabs.com> escreveu:
> 
>> Mauro, please read below, a new set of patches I'm submitting for merge.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> On Thu August 16 2012 19:39:51 Steven Toth wrote:
>>>>>> So, I've ran v4l2-compliance and it pointed out a few things that I've
>>>>>> fixed, but it also does a few things that (for some reason) I can't
>>>>>> seem to catch. One particular test is on (iirc) s_fmt. It attempts to
>>>>>> set ATSC but by ioctl callback never receives ATSC in the norm/id arg,
>>>>>> it actually receives 0x0. This feels more like a bug in the test.
>>>>>> Either way, I have some if (std & ATSC) return -EINVAL, but it still
>>>>>> appears to fail the test.
>>>>
>>>> Oddly enough. If I set tvnorms to something valid, then compliance
>>>> passes but gstreamer
>>>> fails to run, looks like some kind of confusion about either the
>>>> current established
>>>> norm, or a failure to establish a norm.
>>>>
>>>> For the time being I've set tvnorms to 0 (with a comment) and removed
>>>> current_norm.
>>>
>>> Well, this needs to be sorted, because something is clearly amiss.
>>
>> Agreed. I just can't see what's wrong. I may need your advise /
>> eyeballs on this. I'd be willing to provide logs that show gstreamer
>> accessing the driver and exiting. It needs fixed, I've tried, I just
>> can't see why gstreamer fails.
>>
>> On the main topic of merge.... As promised, I spent quite a bit of
>> time this week reworking the code based on the feedback. I also
>> flattened all of these patches into a single patchset and upgraded to
>> the latest re-org tree.
>>
>> The source notes describe in a little more detail the major changes:
>> http://git.kernellabs.com/?p=stoth/media_tree.git;a=commit;h=f295dd63e2f7027e327daad730eb86f2c17e3b2c
>>
>> Mauro, so, I hereby submit for your review/merge again, the updated
>> patchset. *** Please comment. ***
> 
> I'll comment patch by patch. Let's hope the ML will get this email. Not sure,
> as it tends to discard big emails like that.
> 
> This is the comment of patch 1/4.
> 

Patch 2 is trivial. It is obviously OK.

Patch 3 also looked OK on my eyes.

Regards,
Mauro