On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
>
> Dear Guennadi
>
> > I've got a question to you, regarding your interlaced support
> > implementation for the CEU: do I understand it right, that the kind of
> > support you actually have implemented is, that if an interlaced format is
> > now requested from the CEU, it will interpret incoming data as interlaced
> > and deinterlace it internally?
>
> It is correct excluding "interlaced format is now requested from the CEU".
> Now, the device which request interlace format is video device.
> If you use Ecovec, it is tw9910.
That's one part of the equation, yes.
> > If this is really the case, then, I think,
> > it is a wrong way to implement this functionality. If a user requests
> > interlaced data, it means, (s)he wants it interlaced in memory. Whereas
> > deinterlacing should happen transparently - if the user requested
> > progressive data and your source provides interlaced, you can decide to
> > deinterlace it internally. Or am I misunderstanding your implementation?
>
> Hmm...
> Now only "CEU + tw9910" pair use interlace mode in CEU.
> But it doesn't support interlace mode from "user space".
> (I don't know how to request it from user space)
The S_FMT ioctl() has a field "fmt.pix.field," which carries exactly this
information. So, by executing this ioctl() with different field values you
request progressive or one of interlaced formats. And returning
"interlaced," when you actually supply progressive data to the user is not
a good idea, and this is what's currently happening, I think. It's just
our luck, that mplayer (and gstreamer?) ignore returned field value. But
we'll have to fix this in sh_mobile_ceu_camera.
> Now interlace mode is used internally.
> This mean, it seems as "progressive mode" from user space.
Exactly, we return progressive data, but give "interlaced" back in reply
to S_FMT. Or at least we do not differentiate between "user field setting"
and "driver field setting," which we really should.
> > Regardless of theoretical correctness - does your patch still work? Have
> > you been able back then to get CEU to deinterlace data, and when have you
> > last tested it?
>
> I tested CEU interlace mode by using Ecovec board.
> I can watch correct video image on at least v2.6.34.
>
> I used this command.
>
> VIDIX="-vo fbdev:vidix:sh_veu"
> SIZE="-tv width=1280:height=720"
> NTSC="-tv norm=NTSC"
> OUT="tv:// -tv outfmt=nv12"
> DEVICE="-tv device=/dev/video0"
> mplayer ${VIDIX} ${SIZE} ${NTSC} ${OUT} ${DEVICE}
Well, I think, 720p is a little too optimistic for tw9910;) tw9910 works
on migor for me, but not on ecovec, although the chip can be detected. Are
there any modifications necessary to the kernel or to the board to get it
to work? Maybe a jumper or something? I plug in a video signal source in
the "video in" connector, next to the "viceo out" one, using the same
cable, so, cabling should work too. But I'm only getting select timeouts
and no interrupts on the CEU.
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
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
