Hi Hans,
Hans Verkuil wrote:
Hi Hans,
<snip>
Case 3 *is* pivoting. That's a separate piece of information from the
mount position. All I want is that that is administrated in separate bits.
And if we do this, do it right and support the reporting of 0, 90, 180 and
270 degrees. No one expects libv4l to handle the portrait modes, and apps
that can handle this will probably not use libv4l at all.
Now can we please stop this color of the bikeshed discussion, add the 2
damn
flags and move forward?
Anyone can add an API in 5 seconds. It's modifying or removing a bad API
that worries me as that can take years.
I understand.
If you want to add two bits with
mount information, feel free. But don't abuse them for pivot information.
If you want that, then add another two bits for the rotation:
#define V4L2_BUF_FLAG_VFLIP 0x0400
#define V4L2_BUF_FLAG_HFLIP 0x0800
#define V4L2_BUF_FLAG_PIVOT_0 0x0000
#define V4L2_BUF_FLAG_PIVOT_90 0x1000
#define V4L2_BUF_FLAG_PIVOT_180 0x2000
#define V4L2_BUF_FLAG_PIVOT_270 0x3000
#define V4L2_BUF_FLAG_PIVOT_MSK 0x3000
Ok, this seems good. But if we want to distinguish between static sensor mount
information, and dynamic sensor orientation changing due to pivotting, then I
think we should only put the pivot flags in the buffer flags, and the static
flags should be in the VIDIOC_QUERYCAP capabilities flag, what do you think of
that?
Regards,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
