On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 02:14:06PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:10:54PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi and Laurent,
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:10:54PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi and Laurent,
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi and Laurent,
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Tuesday 17 May 2011 07:52:28 Sakari Ailus wrote:
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
What about making it possible to pass an array
Hi Guennadi,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:10:54PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi and Laurent,
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Tuesday 17 May 2011 07:52:28 Sakari Ailus wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
I don't understand this. We do _not_ want to allow holes in indices. For
now we decide to not implement DESTROY at all. In this case indices just
increment contiguously.
The next stage is to implement
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
I don't understand this. We do _not_ want to allow holes in indices. For
now we decide to not implement DESTROY at all. In this case indices just
increment contiguously.
The
On Friday 13 May 2011 09:45:51 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
I've found some more time to get back to this. Let me try to recap, what
has been discussed. I've looked through all replies again (thanks to
all!), so, I'll present a summary. Any mistakes and misinterpretations are
mine;) If I
On Tuesday 17 May 2011 07:52:28 Sakari Ailus wrote:
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Hi Sakari
Hi Guennadi,
[clip]
bool valid_prio = true;
diff --git a/include/linux/videodev2.h b/include/linux/videodev2.h
index aa6c393..b6ef46e 100644
---
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Tuesday 17 May 2011 07:52:28 Sakari Ailus wrote:
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
What about making it possible to pass an array of buffer indices to the
user, just like VIDIOC_S_EXT_CTRLS does? I'm not sure if this would be
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 13 May 2011 09:45:51 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
2. Both these flags should not be passed with CREATE, but with SUBMIT
(which will be renamed to PREPARE or something similar). It should be
possible to prepare the same buffer
Hi,
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 13 May 2011 09:45:51 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
2. Both these flags should not be passed with CREATE, but with SUBMIT
(which will be renamed to PREPARE or something similar). It should be
Hi Guennadi and Laurent,
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Tuesday 17 May 2011 07:52:28 Sakari Ailus wrote:
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
What about making it possible to pass an array of buffer indices to the
user, just like
Hi Guennadi,
Thanks for the patch!
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
I've found some more time to get back to this. Let me try to recap, what
has been discussed. I've looked through all replies again (thanks to
all!), so, I'll present a summary. Any mistakes and misinterpretations are
mine;)
Hi Sakari
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi,
Thanks for the patch!
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
I've found some more time to get back to this. Let me try to recap, what
has been discussed. I've looked through all replies again (thanks to
all!), so, I'll present
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Hi Sakari
Hi Guennadi,
[clip]
bool valid_prio = true;
diff --git a/include/linux/videodev2.h b/include/linux/videodev2.h
index aa6c393..b6ef46e 100644
--- a/include/linux/videodev2.h
+++ b/include/linux/videodev2.h
@@ -1847,6 +1847,26 @@ struct
On Friday, May 13, 2011 09:45:51 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
I've found some more time to get back to this. Let me try to recap, what
has been discussed. I've looked through all replies again (thanks to
all!), so, I'll present a summary. Any mistakes and misinterpretations are
mine;) If I
Hi Guennadi,
Thanks for the RFC! I have a few comments below.
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in V4L2 is required for an efficient implementation of asnapshot mode.
This patch adds three new ioctl()s: VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS,
Hi Hans,
Hans Verkuil wrote:
Hi Hans,
On Thursday 07 April 2011 09:50:13 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
[snip]
Regarding DESTROY_BUFS: perhaps we should just skip this for now and
wait
for the first use-case. That way we don't need to care about holes. I
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:19:18 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:21:03 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
* I O C T L C O D E S F O R V I D
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:19:18 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:21:03 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:19:18 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:21:03 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:19:18 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:21:03 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011
On Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:53:32 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:19:18 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, April
Hi Hans,
On Thursday 07 April 2011 09:50:13 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
[snip]
Regarding DESTROY_BUFS: perhaps we should just skip this for now and wait
for the first use-case. That way we don't need to care about holes. I
don't like artificial
Hi Hans,
On Thursday 07 April 2011 09:50:13 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
[snip]
Regarding DESTROY_BUFS: perhaps we should just skip this for now and
wait
for the first use-case. That way we don't need to care about holes. I
don't like artificial
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:21:03 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
* I O C T L C O D E S F O R V I D E O D E V I C E S
*
@@ -1937,6 +1957,10 @@ struct
Hi Guennadi,
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in V4L2 is required for an efficient implementation of asnapshot mode.
This patch adds three new ioctl()s: VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS,
VIDIOC_DESTROY_BUFS,
On Monday 04 April 2011 10:06:47 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday, April 01, 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
BTW, REQBUFS and CREATE/DESTROY_BUFS should definitely co-exist. REQBUFS
is compulsory, while CREATE/DESTROY are optional.
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in V4L2 is required for an efficient implementation of asnapshot mode.
This patch adds three new ioctl()s: VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS,
VIDIOC_DESTROY_BUFS, and
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:21:03 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in V4L2 is required for an efficient implementation of asnapshot mode.
This patch adds three new
Hi Laurent
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Guennadi,
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in V4L2 is required for an efficient implementation of asnapshot mode.
This patch
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Monday 04 April 2011 10:06:47 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday, April 01, 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
BTW, REQBUFS and CREATE/DESTROY_BUFS should definitely co-exist. REQBUFS
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:02:17 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Monday 04 April 2011 10:06:47 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday, April 01, 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
BTW, REQBUFS and CREATE/DESTROY_BUFS should definitely
On Tuesday 05 April 2011 14:34:57 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:21:03 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
@@ -1937,6 +1957,10 @@ struct v4l2_dbg_chip_ident {
#define VIDIOC_SUBSCRIBE_EVENT _IOW('V', 90,
On Tuesday 05 April 2011 14:40:16 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:02:17 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Monday 04 April 2011 10:06:47 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday, April 01, 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:21:03 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
/*
* I O C T L C O D E S F O R V I D E O D E V I C E S
*
@@ -1937,6 +1957,10 @@ struct
Hi Guennadi,
On Tuesday 05 April 2011 14:39:19 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in V4L2 is required for an
On Tuesday 05 April 2011 14:52:20 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, April 05, 2011 14:21:03 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
/*
* I O C T L C O D E S F O R
Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Guennadi,
Hi all,
On Tuesday 05 April 2011 14:39:19 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 01 April 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in
On Friday, April 01, 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in V4L2 is required for an efficient implementation of asnapshot mode.
This patch adds three new ioctl()s: VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS,
VIDIOC_DESTROY_BUFS, and
Hi Hans
Thanks for the review
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday, April 01, 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in V4L2 is required for an efficient implementation of asnapshot mode.
This patch
Hi Hans
Thanks for the review
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday, April 01, 2011 10:13:02 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in V4L2 is required for an efficient implementation of asnapshot mode.
This
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
[snip]
+/* VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS */
+struct v4l2_create_buffers {
+__u32 index; /* output: buffers
index...index + count - 1 have
been created */
+__u32 count;
+__u32
A possibility to preallocate and initialise buffers of different sizes
in V4L2 is required for an efficient implementation of asnapshot mode.
This patch adds three new ioctl()s: VIDIOC_CREATE_BUFS,
VIDIOC_DESTROY_BUFS, and VIDIOC_SUBMIT_BUF and defines respective data
structures.
Signed-off-by:
44 matches
Mail list logo
