Re: [RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2015-01-06 Thread Florian Echtler
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Hans Verkuil wrote: drivers/media remains under heavy development, so for video capture drivers like yours you should always patch against either the mainline linux tree or (preferred) the media_tree.git repo (git://linuxtv.org/media_tree.git, master branch). As per your

Re: [RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2015-01-06 Thread Hans Verkuil
On 01/06/2015 10:29 AM, Florian Echtler wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Hans Verkuil wrote: drivers/media remains under heavy development, so for video capture drivers like yours you should always patch against either the mainline linux tree or (preferred) the media_tree.git repo

Re: [RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2015-01-06 Thread Florian Echtler
On 06.01.2015 10:36, Hans Verkuil wrote: On 01/06/2015 10:29 AM, Florian Echtler wrote: There's only one failing test left, which is this one: Streaming ioctls: test read/write: OK fail: v4l2-test-buffers.cpp(284): g_field() == V4L2_FIELD_ANY You're not filling in the

Re: [RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2015-01-06 Thread Hans Verkuil
On 01/06/2015 11:17 AM, Florian Echtler wrote: On 06.01.2015 10:36, Hans Verkuil wrote: On 01/06/2015 10:29 AM, Florian Echtler wrote: There's only one failing test left, which is this one: Streaming ioctls: test read/write: OK fail: v4l2-test-buffers.cpp(284): g_field() ==

Re: [RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2015-01-06 Thread Florian Echtler
On 06.01.2015 11:23, Hans Verkuil wrote: On 01/06/2015 11:17 AM, Florian Echtler wrote: You're not filling in the 'field' field of struct v4l2_buffer when returning a frame. It should most likely be FIELD_NONE in your case. fail: v4l2-test-buffers.cpp(611): buf.check(q, last_seq)

Re: [RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2015-01-06 Thread Hans Verkuil
On 01/06/2015 01:09 PM, Florian Echtler wrote: On 06.01.2015 11:23, Hans Verkuil wrote: On 01/06/2015 11:17 AM, Florian Echtler wrote: You're not filling in the 'field' field of struct v4l2_buffer when returning a frame. It should most likely be FIELD_NONE in your case. fail:

Re: [RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2014-12-19 Thread Hans Verkuil
On 12/19/2014 03:30 PM, Florian Echtler wrote: On 18.12.2014 15:11, Hans Verkuil wrote: Run as 'v4l2-compliance -s' (-s starts streaming tests as well and it assumes you have a valid input signal). Mail if you have any questions about the v4l2-compliance output. The failure messages expect

Re: [RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2014-12-19 Thread Florian Echtler
On 19.12.2014 15:36, Hans Verkuil wrote: On 12/19/2014 03:30 PM, Florian Echtler wrote: Ran the most recent version from git master, got a total of 6 fails, 4 of which are probably easy fixes: fail: v4l2-compliance.cpp(306): missing bus_info prefix ('USB:1') test VIDIOC_QUERYCAP: FAIL

Re: [RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2014-12-19 Thread Hans Verkuil
On 12/19/2014 03:57 PM, Florian Echtler wrote: On 19.12.2014 15:36, Hans Verkuil wrote: On 12/19/2014 03:30 PM, Florian Echtler wrote: Ran the most recent version from git master, got a total of 6 fails, 4 of which are probably easy fixes: fail: v4l2-compliance.cpp(306): missing bus_info

[RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2014-12-18 Thread Florian Echtler
Hello everyone, as promised, I've finally implemented the missing raw video feature for the SUR40 touchscreen. Since this is a bit of a weird hybrid device (multitouch input as well as video), I'm hoping for comments from both communities (linux-input and linux-media). I'm also attaching the full

Re: [RFC] [Patch] implement video driver for sur40

2014-12-18 Thread Hans Verkuil
On 12/18/14 14:34, Florian Echtler wrote: Hello everyone, as promised, I've finally implemented the missing raw video feature for the SUR40 touchscreen. Since this is a bit of a weird hybrid device (multitouch input as well as video), I'm hoping for comments from both communities