On 05/Mai/2016 00:14, Andrey Utkin wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:21:20PM -0300, Ismael Luceno wrote: > > From: Andrey Utkin <andrey.utkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Such frame size is met in practice. Also report oversized frames. > > > > [ismael: Reworked warning and commit message] > > > > Signed-off-by: Ismael Luceno <ismael@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > I object against merging the first part. > > > --- > > drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c | 7 +++++-- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c > > index 67a14c4..f98017b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-v4l2-enc.c > > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ > > #include "solo6x10-jpeg.h" > > > > #define MIN_VID_BUFFERS 2 > > -#define FRAME_BUF_SIZE (196 * 1024) > > +#define FRAME_BUF_SIZE (200 * 1024) > > Please don't push this. > It doesn't matter whether there are 196 or 200 KiB because there happen > bigger frames. > I don't remember details so I cannot point to all time max frame size. > AFAIK this issue appeared on one particular customer installation. I > don't monitor it closely right now. I think I have compiled custom > package for that setup with FRAME_BUF_SIZE increased much more (maybe > 10x?). I don't quite remember the overscan, but the maximum should be around 1.2MB, so yes. If the QM hasn't been tweaked, then the image must be terrible. -- 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
