On Tuesday 17 February 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote:
snip
The tentative conclusion was that putting it in the v4l2_input
struct was a good idea.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call it even a tentative conclusion.
I think the biggest stumbling block for now is how to handle Olivier Lorin's
kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
huge snip
Therefore,
1. Everyone seems to agree that the kernel module itself is not going to
do things like rotate or flip data even if a given supported device
always needs that done.
However, this decision has a consequence:
2. Therefore, the
Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2009 05:04:40 Trent Piepho wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:29:03 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I think we should also be able to detect 90 and 270 degree
rotations. Or at the very
kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
huge snip
Therefore,
1. Everyone seems to agree that the kernel module itself is not going to
do things like rotate or flip data even if a given supported device
always needs that done.
However, this decision has a consequence:
2. Therefore,
Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2009 05:04:40 Trent Piepho wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:29:03 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I think we should also be able to detect 90 and 270 degree
rotations. Or at the very
Hans Verkuil wrote:
Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2009 05:04:40 Trent Piepho wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:29:03 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I think we should also be able to detect 90 and 270 degree
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:44:03 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I've discussed this with Laurent Pinchart (and other webcam driver authors)
and
the conclusion was that having a table of USB-ID's + DMI strings in the
driver,
and design an API to tell userspace to sensor is
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:44:03 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I've discussed this with Laurent Pinchart (and other webcam driver authors) and
the conclusion was that having a table of USB-ID's + DMI strings in the driver,
and design an API to tell
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:19:47 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
Hans,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:44:03 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I've discussed this with Laurent Pinchart (and other webcam driver
authors) and
the
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:19:47 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
Hans,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:44:03 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I've discussed this with Laurent Pinchart (and other webcam driver
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote:
If you want to add two bits with
mount information, feel free. But don't abuse them for pivot
information.
If you want that, then add another two bits for the rotation:
Ok, this seems good. But if we want to distinguish between static sensor
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 03:00:34 kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Adam Baker wrote:
Lots of snipping below so I hope I get the attributions correct.
On Monday 16 February 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote:
We are talking about a core change, so some careful thought
kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Saturday 14 February 2009 22:55:39 Hans de Goede wrote:
Adam Baker wrote:
Hi all,
Hans Verkuil put forward a convincing argument that sensor orientation
shouldn't be part of the buffer flags as then it
Trent Piepho wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Sunday 15 February 2009 10:08:04 Hans de Goede wrote:
kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Saturday 14 February 2009 22:55:39 Hans de Goede wrote:
Adam Baker
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Hans de Goede wrote:
Trent Piepho wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Sunday 15 February 2009 10:08:04 Hans de Goede wrote:
kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Saturday 14 February
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:29:03 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I think we should also be able to detect 90 and 270 degree rotations. Or at
the very least prepare for it. It's a safe bet to assume that webcams will
arrive that can detect portrait vs landscape orientation.
Hi guys,
Am Sonntag, den 15.02.2009, 19:46 -0600 schrieb
kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Trent Piepho wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Hans de Goede wrote:
Trent Piepho wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Sunday 15 February 2009
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Trent Piepho wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Hans de Goede wrote:
I think we should also be able to detect 90 and 270 degree rotations.
Or at
the very least prepare for it. It's a safe bet to assume that webcams
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:29:03 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I think we should also be able to detect 90 and 270 degree rotations. Or
at
the very least prepare for it. It's a safe bet to assume that webcams will
arrive
On Monday 16 February 2009 05:04:40 Trent Piepho wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:29:03 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I think we should also be able to detect 90 and 270 degree
rotations. Or at the very least prepare
Hi all,
Hans Verkuil put forward a convincing argument that sensor orientation
shouldn't be part of the buffer flags as then it would be unavailable to
clients that use read() so it looks like implementing a read only control is
the only appropriate option.
It seems that Sensor Orientation is
21 matches
Mail list logo
