From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mA9DVKQU005985 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 08:31:20 -0500 Received: from smtp2-g19.free.fr (smtp2-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.28]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA9DV8H4004107 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 08:31:08 -0500 To: Guennadi Liakhovetski References: <87tzahwwr1.fsf@free.fr> <87y6ztxibu.fsf@free.fr> From: Robert Jarzmik Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:31:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Guennadi Liakhovetski's message of "Sun\, 9 Nov 2008 13\:36\:14 +0100 \(CET\)") Message-ID: <87prl5xbz9.fsf@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: video4linux-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] soc-camera: let camera host drivers decide upon pixel format List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: video4linux-list-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: video4linux-list-bounces@redhat.com List-ID: Guennadi Liakhovetski writes: > Hi Robert, > As I wrote in the comment to the patch, I think, lists of pixel formats, > supported by sensors are rather static, therefore they can be easily > represented by a list of structures, that's what our ->formats are about. > Now, the latest patch changes the logic in a way, that this list is now > what a sensor offers, and not what the user gets, requests to set a format > are now handled by camera hosts, so they decide how to implement the > requested format. Now, we are almost that far. What I've forgotten about > and why, probably, you decided we still don't do that, is that the > ->formats array is still used for format enumeration. It shall not be. So, > I'm going to write another patch, that would move format enumeration into > host drivers. To do that, we will probably have to create such a list > _dynamically_ in .add() method based on the ->formats list _and_ host's > capabilities. We might use the ->host_priv link, I suggested in my > previous email, to hold that list. It would be even better to not have to > create such a list and just enumerate formats dynamically in the host > driver, but I am not sure how to handle the index... I'll have to think > about it a bit more. > > Does this answer your question? Yes, absolutely. That's the right direction. I'm looking forward to see the incremental patch, as you may guess ;) My YUV work is over, I'm just waiting for the soc_camera patchset to stabilize to fire my own serie. I'll try to think about the fully dynamic formats list, even if I prefer the computed list at sensor attachment. -- Robert -- video4linux-list mailing list Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list