Hi Hans, Thank you for the patch, On 10/10/18 08:03, Hans Verkuil wrote: > Lower the minimum height to 360 to be consistent with the webcam input of vivid. > > The 480 was rather arbitrary but it made it harder to use vivid as a source for > encoding since the default resolution when you load vivid is 640x360. As this is a virtual codec, is the minimum width and height really so 'large' ? What about 320x240 or such? (or even 32x32...) Or is the aim to provide minimum frame sizes and a means to verify userspace correctly handles the minimum frame sizes too ? I could certainly acknowledge it's worth providing a means for a userspace app to test that it handles minimum sizes correctly. > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx> If the minimum is desired: Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/vicodec/vicodec-core.c b/drivers/media/platform/vicodec/vicodec-core.c > index 1eb9132bfc85..b292cff26c86 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/platform/vicodec/vicodec-core.c > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/vicodec/vicodec-core.c > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(debug, " activates debug info"); > #define MAX_WIDTH 4096U > #define MIN_WIDTH 640U > #define MAX_HEIGHT 2160U > -#define MIN_HEIGHT 480U > +#define MIN_HEIGHT 360U > > #define dprintk(dev, fmt, arg...) \ > v4l2_dbg(1, debug, &dev->v4l2_dev, "%s: " fmt, __func__, ## arg) >
