Hi Hans, Thanks for your inputs.We are part of Linaro organisation For more details on Linaro please refer to http://www.linaro.org . As part of our activities on Linaro we have been debating at whats the right solution for exposing camera support / features on a platform Openmax or v4l2.
Also can you share some details/docs on how userside library/v4l2 partitioning is supposed to work. Thanks Sachin On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverk...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 09, 2011 07:34:09 Sachin Gupta wrote: > > Looking at ppt from Robert , it seems v4l2 subdevices is the way to > support > > different devices that may be involved in imaging processing chain, also > > from the ppt it seems a userside library for Media controller is needed > > particular to each platform which controls these subdevices.I have not > been > > able to find detailed documentation on this but it seems we are talking > > about custom solution for every platform based on platform topology for > > image processing chain. > > It is not clear yet whether custom libraries will be needed or not. For > omap3 > (the first driver to use the media controller) it doesn't seem to be needed > (yet?). > > However, the complexity of some of these video systems is such that I can't > help thinking that some library will be required to simplify the use of > such > hardware. > > In general it will not be possible to make a completely generic solution > for > video subsystems that will work everywhere. The various architectures > simply > are too varied for that. The media controller will go some way to solving > this, > but a 100% solution is in practice impossible. > > If you go only for a subset (for example, setting up a standard simple > pipeline > for a camera-type system), you are probably able to make something generic, > but > if you want to get full control over such systems in order to get the best > possible quality, then you will have to customize your code for that > particular > hardware. > > It might help me if I could get a better idea of what you are working on > and > what the goal is. I came in in the middle of the discussion and I think I'm > missing some of the pieces :-) > > Regards, > > Hans > > > > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Subash Patel <subash...@samsung.com> > wrote: > > > > > In the reference architecture in ppt, we can directly wait for the RSZ > > > interrupt, if we configure the hardware pipe. It was my > mis-understanding as > > > each of those hardware blocks can deliver interrupts too. In that way > ARM > > > needs to just work at finished frame, like forward it to the display or > > > codec engine etc. V4L2 can be easily used for such hardware > architecture. > > > > > > But if a ISP chooses to do the above work in a seperate (dsp)processor, > can > > > we still use V4L2? OMX seems better in such environment. Let me know if > > > there is any other alternative. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Subash > > > _______________________________________________ > > > linaro-dev mailing list > > > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > > > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > > > > > > > -- > Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by Cisco >
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
