Hi Guennadi, On Friday 19 November 2010 15:15:11 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Friday 19 November 2010 14:42:31 Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > On Friday 19 November 2010 14:26:42 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > Some buggy sensors generate corrupt frames when the stream is > > > > started. This new operation returns the number of corrupt frames to > > > > skip when starting the stream. > > > > > > Looks OK, but perhaps the two should be combined to one function? > > > > I'm fine with both. Guennadi, any opinion ? > > Same as before;) I think, there can be many more such "micro" parameters, > that we'll want to collect from the sensor. So, if we had a good idea - > what those parameters are like, we could implement just one API call to > get them all, or even just pass one object with this information - if it > is constant. If we don't have a good idea yet, what to expect there, it > might be best to wait and first collect a more complete understanding of > this kind of information. I agree. > In any case I wouldn't convert these two calls > to one like > > int (*get_bad_things)(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, u32 *lines, u32 *frames) > > ;) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
