Hi Dave, On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:44PM +0000, Dave Stevenson wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 11:52, Dave Stevenson > <dave.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Hans. > > > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 13:00, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/16/19 1:52 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:04:31PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > >> It turns out that Sakari posted a newer patch in 2018. I used that > > > >> for this v2: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/48372/ > > > >> > > > >> Mauro commented on that original patch that there was no need to > > > >> have this available for userspace. > > > >> > > > >> I disagree: why wouldn't userspace want to report pixelformats? > > > >> > > > >> It happens in several places in v4l-utils, and there the pixelformats are > > > >> printed in different ways as well. Providing a standard way of reporting > > > >> a V4L2 fourcc is very useful. > > > > > > > > Thanks, Hans! > > > > > > > > Can you take these to your tree (perhaps pending some sort of agreement > > > > with Mauro)? > > > > > > > > > > Certainly. > > > > > > Hans > > > > What happened to these? Patchwork is flagging them as rejected[1], but > > there's only been positive responses to them on the mailing list. > > Ping. Why were these patches rejected? This was discussed on media-maint channel. The log is here: <URL:https://linuxtv.org/irc/irclogger_log/media-maint?date=2020-02-06,Thu&raw=on> -- Sakari Ailus
