On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:20:09AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
My idea was to let the kernel register all devices based on the DT or board
code. When the V4L2 host/bridge driver gets registered, it will then call a
V4L2 core function
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 02:41:48PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:20:09AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
My idea was to let the kernel register all devices based on the DT or
board
code. When the V4L2
Hi Grant
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 02:41:48PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:20:09AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
My idea was to let the kernel register all devices based
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
g.liakhovet...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Grant
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 02:41:48PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:20:09AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011,
On Tuesday 30 August 2011 17:18:31 Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
g.liakhovet...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Grant
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 02:41:48PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:42:55PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
A dependency system is tempting but will be very complex to implement
properly, especially when faced with cyclic dependencies. For instance the
OMAP3 ISP driver requires the camera sensor device to be present to proceed,
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
A dependency system is tempting but will be very complex to implement
properly, especially when faced with cyclic dependencies. For instance the
OMAP3 ISP driver requires the camera sensor device to be present to proceed,
Switching to a notifier
Hi Mark,
On Tuesday 30 August 2011 17:46:42 Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:42:55PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
A dependency system is tempting but will be very complex to implement
properly, especially when faced with cyclic dependencies. For instance
the OMAP3 ISP driver
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:12:30PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Would such a device be included in the DT ? My understanding is that the DT
should only describe the hardware.
For ASoC they will be, the view is that the schematic for the board is
sufficiently interesting to count as
Hi Sylwester,
On Sunday 28 August 2011 13:28:23 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 08/08/2011 05:50 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Subdevs hierachy, Linux device model
Preliminary conclusions:
- With the move to device tree on ARM (and other
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
[snip]
My idea was to let the kernel register all devices based on the DT or board
code. When the V4L2 host/bridge driver gets registered, it will then call a
V4L2 core function with a list of subdevs it needs. The V4L2 core would store
that
Hi Guennadi,
On Tuesday 30 August 2011 00:20:09 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
[snip]
My idea was to let the kernel register all devices based on the DT or
board code. When the V4L2 host/bridge driver gets registered, it will
then call a V4L2
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Guennadi,
On Tuesday 30 August 2011 00:20:09 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
[snip]
My idea was to let the kernel register all devices based on the DT or
board code. When the V4L2
Hi Laurent,
On 08/08/2011 05:50 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Subdevs hierachy, Linux device model
Preliminary conclusions:
- With the move to device tree on ARM (and other platforms), I2C, SPI and
platform subdevs should be created from board
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:50:06PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi everybody,
Hi, all!
The V4L2 brainstorming meeting held in Cambourne from August the 1st to
August
the 5th was a success. I would like to thank Linaro again, and particularly
Stephen Doel and Arwen Donaghey, for
On Tuesday, August 09, 2011 06:36:19 pm nitesh moundekar wrote:
I am worried about direction v4l2 is taking. It looks against the basic
principle of driver i.e. hardware abstraction.
There definitely should be an API which is hardware independent.
However, the problem is that the hardware is
nitesh moundekar wrote:
Hi Sakari,
Hi Nitesh,
So without touching these controls, drivers should be able to work with
default or internal settings calculated from frame rate and resolution. And
when application like DSLR wants more control it can access those controls.
The current interface
Hi Sakari,
I have a point with the pixel clock. During discussion we found that
pixel clock get/set is required for user space to do fine control over
the frame-rate etc. What if the user sets the pixel array clock which is
above the system/if bus clock? Suppose we are setting the pixel clock
Subash Patel wrote:
Hi Sakari,
Hi Subash,
I have a point with the pixel clock. During discussion we found that
pixel clock get/set is required for user space to do fine control over
the frame-rate etc. What if the user sets the pixel array clock which is
above the system/if bus clock?
nitesh moundekar wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Nitesh,
I am worried about direction v4l2 is taking. It looks against the basic
principle of driver i.e. hardware abstraction. So i think giving out pixel
clock, binning, skipping, bayer pattern, etc device varying features to user
space questionable. We
Hi everybody,
The V4L2 brainstorming meeting held in Cambourne from August the 1st to August
the 5th was a success. I would like to thank Linaro again, and particularly
Stephen Doel and Arwen Donaghey, for accommodating us during the whole week.
Here is a summary of the discussions, with
21 matches
Mail list logo
