On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 13:10 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> To make it perfectly clear, I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to
> replace
> DRM, FBDEV and V4L2 with a new shared subsystem. What I would like to see in
> the (near future) is collaboration and sharing of core features that
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 13:10:35 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Ville,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> (Cross-posting to the linux-fbdev and linux-media mailing lists, as the
> topics I'm about to discuss are of interest to everybody)
>
> On Wednesday 16 November 2011 19:42:23 ville.syrjala
Hi Ville,
Sorry for the late reply.
(Cross-posting to the linux-fbdev and linux-media mailing lists, as the topics
I'm about to discuss are of interest to everybody)
On Wednesday 16 November 2011 19:42:23 ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> I decided to go all out with the pixel format
Hi Ville,
Sorry for the late reply.
(Cross-posting to the linux-fbdev and linux-media mailing lists, as the topics
I'm about to discuss are of interest to everybody)
On Wednesday 16 November 2011 19:42:23 ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
I decided to go all out with the pixel format
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 13:10:35 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Ville,
Sorry for the late reply.
(Cross-posting to the linux-fbdev and linux-media mailing lists, as the
topics I'm about to discuss are of interest to everybody)
On Wednesday 16 November 2011 19:42:23
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 13:10 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
To make it perfectly clear, I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to
replace
DRM, FBDEV and V4L2 with a new shared subsystem. What I would like to see in
the (near future) is collaboration and sharing of core features that make
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:20:44 +0200
> Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
>> > Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
>> > > Oh and one extra detail just occured to
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:20:44 +0200
Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
> > Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> > > Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
> > > formats. Should we even define
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
> Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> > Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
> > formats. Should we even define formats for both the YUV vs. YVU
> > variant. Seeing as we now have
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:26:20PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I think the only format in my list where I didn't use an existing fourcc
> > is I420/IYUV. And BTW, for that one I used the same "fake" fourcc that
>
> Right but you redefine all sorts of stuff in the driver in your patch to
> non
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:20:44 +0200
Ville Syrjälä ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
Ville Syrjälä ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Jesse Barnes jbar...@virtuousgeek.org wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:20:44 +0200
Ville Syrjälä ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
Ville Syrjälä
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 07:54:12PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > If anyone has problems with the way the formats are defined, please
> > speak up now! Since only Jesse has bothered to comment on my rantings
> > I can only assume people are happy with my approach to things.
>
> Umm .. no. I don't see
> I think the only format in my list where I didn't use an existing fourcc
> is I420/IYUV. And BTW, for that one I used the same "fake" fourcc that
Right but you redefine all sorts of stuff in the driver in your patch to
non FourCC names which is just confusing (and painful given the format
I decided to go all out with the pixel format definitions. Added pretty
much all of the possible RGB/BGR variations. Just left out ones with
16bit components and floats. Also added a whole bunch of YUV formats,
and 8 bit pseudocolor for good measure.
I'm sure some of the fourccs now clash with
> If anyone has problems with the way the formats are defined, please
> speak up now! Since only Jesse has bothered to comment on my rantings
> I can only assume people are happy with my approach to things.
Umm .. no. I don't see why they are needed. Its just an extra layer of
gratuitious
> I decided to go all out with the pixel format definitions. Added pretty
> much all of the possible RGB/BGR variations. Just left out ones with
> 16bit components and floats. Also added a whole bunch of YUV formats,
> and 8 bit pseudocolor for good measure.
Thank you for including the
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
> formats. Should we even define formats for both the YUV vs. YVU
> variant. Seeing as we now have independent handles and offsets for
> each plane, we can make do with
I decided to go all out with the pixel format definitions. Added pretty
much all of the possible RGB/BGR variations. Just left out ones with
16bit components and floats. Also added a whole bunch of YUV formats,
and 8 bit pseudocolor for good measure.
I'm sure some of the fourccs now clash with
I decided to go all out with the pixel format definitions. Added pretty
much all of the possible RGB/BGR variations. Just left out ones with
16bit components and floats. Also added a whole bunch of YUV formats,
and 8 bit pseudocolor for good measure.
Thank you for including the pseudocolor
If anyone has problems with the way the formats are defined, please
speak up now! Since only Jesse has bothered to comment on my rantings
I can only assume people are happy with my approach to things.
Umm .. no. I don't see why they are needed. Its just an extra layer of
gratuitious confusing
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 07:54:12PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
If anyone has problems with the way the formats are defined, please
speak up now! Since only Jesse has bothered to comment on my rantings
I can only assume people are happy with my approach to things.
Umm .. no. I don't see why
I think the only format in my list where I didn't use an existing fourcc
is I420/IYUV. And BTW, for that one I used the same fake fourcc that
Right but you redefine all sorts of stuff in the driver in your patch to
non FourCC names which is just confusing (and painful given the format
picked)
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
Ville Syrjälä ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
formats. Should we even define formats for both the YUV vs. YVU
variant. Seeing as we now have independent handles and offsets for
each
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:26:20PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
I think the only format in my list where I didn't use an existing fourcc
is I420/IYUV. And BTW, for that one I used the same fake fourcc that
Right but you redefine all sorts of stuff in the driver in your patch to
non FourCC names
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
Ville Syrjälä ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
formats. Should we even define formats for both the YUV vs. YVU
variant.
26 matches
Mail list logo
