Hi,
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:09:59PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
Well, I gave two alternatives :-)
Both are fine as far as I am concerned, but it would be nice to hear
what others think.
In fact I think both are good options. :-)
I'd perhaps lean towards the latter, for it has the benefit
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 17:00:25 +0200
Sakari Ailus sakari.ai...@iki.fi wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:09:59PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
Well, I gave two alternatives :-)
Both are fine as far as I am concerned, but it would be nice to hear
what others think.
In fact I think
Rename mediabus formats and move the enum into a separate header file so
that it can be used by DRM/KMS subsystem without any reference to the V4L2
subsystem.
Old V4L2_MBUS_FMT_ definitions are now referencing MEDIA_BUS_FMT_ value.
Acked-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski g.liakhovet...@gmx.de
Hi Boris,
On 11/04/14 10:54, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Rename mediabus formats and move the enum into a separate header file so
that it can be used by DRM/KMS subsystem without any reference to the V4L2
subsystem.
Old V4L2_MBUS_FMT_ definitions are now referencing MEDIA_BUS_FMT_ value.
I
On 11/04/14 11:20, Hans Verkuil wrote:
Hi Boris,
On 11/04/14 10:54, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Rename mediabus formats and move the enum into a separate header file so
that it can be used by DRM/KMS subsystem without any reference to the V4L2
subsystem.
Old V4L2_MBUS_FMT_ definitions are
Hi Hans,
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:20:40 +0100
Hans Verkuil hansv...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Boris,
On 11/04/14 10:54, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Rename mediabus formats and move the enum into a separate header file so
that it can be used by DRM/KMS subsystem without any reference to the V4L2
Well, I gave two alternatives :-)
Both are fine as far as I am concerned, but it would be nice to hear
what others think.
Regards,
Hans
On 11/04/14 11:45, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Hans,
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:20:40 +0100
Hans Verkuil hansv...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Boris,
On
