On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 13:10 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> To make it perfectly clear, I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to
> replace
> DRM, FBDEV and V4L2 with a new shared subsystem. What I would like to see in
> the (near future) is collaboration and sharing of core features that mak
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 13:10:35 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Ville,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> (Cross-posting to the linux-fbdev and linux-media mailing lists, as the
> topics I'm about to discuss are of interest to everybody)
>
> On Wednesday 16 November 2011 19:42:23 ville.syrjala
Hi Ville,
Sorry for the late reply.
(Cross-posting to the linux-fbdev and linux-media mailing lists, as the topics
I'm about to discuss are of interest to everybody)
On Wednesday 16 November 2011 19:42:23 ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> I decided to go all out with the pixel format de
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 13:10 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> To make it perfectly clear, I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to
> replace
> DRM, FBDEV and V4L2 with a new shared subsystem. What I would like to see in
> the (near future) is collaboration and sharing of core features that mak
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 13:10:35 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Ville,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> (Cross-posting to the linux-fbdev and linux-media mailing lists, as the
> topics I'm about to discuss are of interest to everybody)
>
> On Wednesday 16 November 2011 19:42:23 ville.syrj...@
Hi Ville,
Sorry for the late reply.
(Cross-posting to the linux-fbdev and linux-media mailing lists, as the topics
I'm about to discuss are of interest to everybody)
On Wednesday 16 November 2011 19:42:23 ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> I decided to go all out with the pixel format defin
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Jesse Barnes
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:20:44 +0200
> Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
>> > Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
>> > > Oh and one extra detail just occured to m
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:20:44 +0200
> Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
>> > Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> > > Oh and one extra detail just occured to me
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:20:44 +0200
Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
> > Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> > > Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
> > > formats. Should we even define
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:20:44 +0200
Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
> > Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
> > > formats. Should we even define
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
> Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> > Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
> > formats. Should we even define formats for both the YUV vs. YVU
> > variant. Seeing as we now have
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:26:20PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I think the only format in my list where I didn't use an existing fourcc
> > is I420/IYUV. And BTW, for that one I used the same "fake" fourcc that
>
> Right but you redefine all sorts of stuff in the driver in your patch to
> non FourC
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 07:54:12PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > If anyone has problems with the way the formats are defined, please
> > speak up now! Since only Jesse has bothered to comment on my rantings
> > I can only assume people are happy with my approach to things.
>
> Umm .. no. I don't see
> I think the only format in my list where I didn't use an existing fourcc
> is I420/IYUV. And BTW, for that one I used the same "fake" fourcc that
Right but you redefine all sorts of stuff in the driver in your patch to
non FourCC names which is just confusing (and painful given the format
picked
I decided to go all out with the pixel format definitions. Added pretty
much all of the possible RGB/BGR variations. Just left out ones with
16bit components and floats. Also added a whole bunch of YUV formats,
and 8 bit pseudocolor for good measure.
I'm sure some of the fourccs now clash with the
> If anyone has problems with the way the formats are defined, please
> speak up now! Since only Jesse has bothered to comment on my rantings
> I can only assume people are happy with my approach to things.
Umm .. no. I don't see why they are needed. Its just an extra layer of
gratuitious confusin
> I decided to go all out with the pixel format definitions. Added pretty
> much all of the possible RGB/BGR variations. Just left out ones with
> 16bit components and floats. Also added a whole bunch of YUV formats,
> and 8 bit pseudocolor for good measure.
Thank you for including the pseudocolo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
> Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
> > formats. Should we even define formats for both the YUV vs. YVU
> > variant. Seeing as we now have
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:26:20PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I think the only format in my list where I didn't use an existing fourcc
> > is I420/IYUV. And BTW, for that one I used the same "fake" fourcc that
>
> Right but you redefine all sorts of stuff in the driver in your patch to
> non FourC
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
> formats. Should we even define formats for both the YUV vs. YVU
> variant. Seeing as we now have independent handles and offsets for
> each plane, we can make do with ju
> I think the only format in my list where I didn't use an existing fourcc
> is I420/IYUV. And BTW, for that one I used the same "fake" fourcc that
Right but you redefine all sorts of stuff in the driver in your patch to
non FourCC names which is just confusing (and painful given the format
picked
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:19:38 +0200
Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> Oh and one extra detail just occured to me regarding the three plane
> formats. Should we even define formats for both the YUV vs. YVU
> variant. Seeing as we now have independent handles and offsets for
> each plane, we can make do with ju
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 07:54:12PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > If anyone has problems with the way the formats are defined, please
> > speak up now! Since only Jesse has bothered to comment on my rantings
> > I can only assume people are happy with my approach to things.
>
> Umm .. no. I don't see
> If anyone has problems with the way the formats are defined, please
> speak up now! Since only Jesse has bothered to comment on my rantings
> I can only assume people are happy with my approach to things.
Umm .. no. I don't see why they are needed. Its just an extra layer of
gratuitious confusin
> I decided to go all out with the pixel format definitions. Added pretty
> much all of the possible RGB/BGR variations. Just left out ones with
> 16bit components and floats. Also added a whole bunch of YUV formats,
> and 8 bit pseudocolor for good measure.
Thank you for including the pseudocolo
I decided to go all out with the pixel format definitions. Added pretty
much all of the possible RGB/BGR variations. Just left out ones with
16bit components and floats. Also added a whole bunch of YUV formats,
and 8 bit pseudocolor for good measure.
I'm sure some of the fourccs now clash with the
26 matches
Mail list logo
