On Friday, February 25, 2011 19:23:43 Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi and others,
Apologies for the late reply...
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 22:42:58 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
Clock values are often being
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2011 19:23:43 Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi and others,
Apologies for the late reply...
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 22:42:58 Sylwester
On Saturday, February 26, 2011 14:14:29 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2011 19:23:43 Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi and others,
Apologies for the late reply...
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb
On 02/26/2011 01:50 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2011 19:23:43 Sakari Ailus wrote:
Hi Guennadi and others,
Apologies for the late reply...
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 22:42:58 Sylwester Nawrocki
Hi Hans,
On Saturday 26 February 2011 13:50:12 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2011 19:23:43 Sakari Ailus wrote:
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 22:42:58 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
Clock values are often
Hi Guennadi and others,
Apologies for the late reply...
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 22:42:58 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
Clock values are often being rounded at runtime and do not always reflect
exactly
the numbers
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 22:42:58 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
Hi everybody,
On 02/22/2011 06:00 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 17:27:47 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stan wrote:
In principle I agree with this bus negotiation.
- So.
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 09:10:42 Hans Verkuil wrote:
Unfortunately, if a subdev is set to 'sample at rising edge', then that does
not necessarily mean that the host should sample at the same edge. Depending
on the clock line routing and the integrity of the clock signal the host may
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 22:42:58 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
Hi everybody,
On 02/22/2011 06:00 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 17:27:47 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stan wrote:
In principle
Hi Guennadi,
On Tuesday 22 February 2011 12:40:32 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
This RFC patch adds a new subdev sensor operation named
g_interface_parms. It is planned as a not mandatory operation and it is
driver's developer decision to use it
Hi Sergio,
On Tuesday 22 February 2011 15:01:57 Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 7:33 AM Hans Verkuil wrote: On Tuesday,
February 22, 2011 12:40:32 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
This RFC patch adds a new subdev sensor
On Tuesday 22 February 2011 18:08:40 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
[snip]
I also think that there is a reasonable chance that such bugs can happen.
Take a scenario like this: someone writes a new host driver. Initially
there is only support for
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 15:06:49 Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
Guennadi and Hans,
snip
The only static data I am concerned about are those that affect signal
integrity.
After thinking carefully about this I realized that there is really only
one
setting that is relevant to
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 15:06:49 Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
Guennadi and Hans,
snip
The only static data I am concerned about are those that affect signal
integrity.
After thinking carefully about this I realized that there is
-Original Message-
From: Hans Verkuil [mailto:hansv...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:32 AM
To: Hans Verkuil
Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki; Guennadi Liakhovetski; Stan; linux-
me...@vger.kernel.org; Laurent Pinchart; Aguirre, Sergio
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] New
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 15:06:49 Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
snip
The only static data I am concerned about are those that affect signal
integrity.
After thinking carefully about this I realized that there is really
only one setting that is relevant to that: the sampling edge.
/PATCH 0/1] New subdev sensor operation g_interface_parms
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 17:02:57 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 16:30:42 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 15:06:49 Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
snip
The only static data I am
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 17:14:41 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 17:02:57 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 16:30:42 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 15:06:49 Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
snip
The only static data
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 17:28:39 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 17:14:41 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 17:02:57 Hans Verkuil wrote:
[snip]
When you switch polarity for data/field/hsync/vsync signals on a simple
bus you just invert
Hi Guennadi,
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 10:31:21 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
Currently soc-camera auto-configures the following parameters:
hsync polarity
vsync polarity
data polarity
Data polarity ? Are there sensors that can invert the data polarity ?
master / slave mode
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Guennadi,
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 10:31:21 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[snip]
Currently soc-camera auto-configures the following parameters:
hsync polarity
vsync polarity
data polarity
Data polarity ? Are there sensors
; Stan; linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] New subdev sensor operation g_interface_parms
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 17:02:57 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 16:30:42 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 15:06:49 Aguirre, Sergio
Liakhovetski; Hans Verkuil; Sylwester
Nawrocki; Stan; linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] New subdev sensor operation
g_interface_parms
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 17:02:57 Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 16:30:42 Laurent Pinchart wrote
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
This RFC patch adds a new subdev sensor operation named g_interface_parms.
It is planned as a not mandatory operation and it is driver's developer
decision to use it or not.
Please share your opinions and ideas.
Yes, I like the idea in
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:40:32 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
This RFC patch adds a new subdev sensor operation named g_interface_parms.
It is planned as a not mandatory operation and it is driver's developer
decision to use it or not.
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: Hans Verkuil [mailto:hansv...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 7:33 AM
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski
Cc: Stanimir Varbanov; linux-media@vger.kernel.org;
laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com; Aguirre, Sergio
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] New subdev
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:40:32 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
This RFC patch adds a new subdev sensor operation named g_interface_parms.
It is planned as a not mandatory operation and it is
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
For example, at least OMAP3 4 has the following pin pairs:
CSI2_DX0, CSI2_DY0
CSI2_DX1, CSI2_DY1
CSI2_DX2, CSI2_DY2
CSI2_DX3, CSI2_DY3
CSI2_DX4, CSI2_DY4
So, what you do is that, you can control where do you want the clock,
where do you
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
Secondly, if we rely on negotiations, then someone at some time might change
things and suddenly the negotiation gives different results which may not
work
on some boards. And such bugs can be extremely hard to track down. So that is
Sorry,
Hi,
Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:40:32 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
This RFC patch adds a new subdev sensor operation named g_interface_parms.
It is planned as a not
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 17:27:47 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stan wrote:
In principle I agree with this bus negotiation.
- So. let's start thinking how this could be fit to the subdev sensor
operations.
Well, I'm afraid not everyone is convinced yet, so,
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 17:27:47 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stan wrote:
In principle I agree with this bus negotiation.
- So. let's start thinking how this could be fit to the subdev sensor
operations.
Hi everybody,
On 02/22/2011 06:00 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 17:27:47 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Stan wrote:
In principle I agree with this bus negotiation.
- So. let's start thinking how this could be fit to the subdev sensor
operations.
33 matches
Mail list logo
