On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:38:35PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Thursday 14 July 2011 19:56:10 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I was thinking about the sensor binning controls. > > > > What wrong with just doing S_FMT on the subdev pad? Binning does in fact > > implement scaling. > > That's indeed one solution. The downside, compared to controls, is that a > sensor that implements binning, skipping and scaling would need to expose 3 > entities, to let applications configure them 3 "scalers" independently. If > binning and skipping were implemented as controls (which might not be a good > idea, I still haven't made up my mind on this), a single entity would > (probably) be enough. Different hardware may do these operations in a different order. Scaling should be the last, but I'm not sure if that holds for all hardware. The order will affect the end result, and likely also to user's decision on configuration. However, when one considers such decisions (s)he typically has otherwise a very good understanding of the hardware and thus knows the order of these operations. -- Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@xxxxxx -- 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
