Hi Mauro, Could you please comment on this ? In a nutshell (and from my biased point of view), the question is "can cropping be configured using S_FMT instead of S_CROP ?". The answer is of course no :-) On Tuesday 30 August 2011 15:13:25 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 August 2011 10:55:08 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > On Monday 29 August 2011 14:34:53 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > > On Monday 29 August 2011 14:18:50 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Aug 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -774,17 +839,27 @@ static int ov5642_s_fmt(struct > > > > > > > > > v4l2_subdev *sd, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ov5642_try_fmt(sd, mf); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + priv->out_size.width = mf->width; > > > > > > > > > + priv->out_size.height = mf->height; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like to me (but I may be wrong) that you achieve > > > > > > > > different resolutions using cropping, not scaling. If that's > > > > > > > > correct you should implement s_crop support and refuse > > > > > > > > changing the resolution through s_fmt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As the patch explains (I think) on several occasions, currently > > > > > > > only the 1:1 scale is supported, and it was our deliberate > > > > > > > choice to implement this using the scaling API > > > > > > > > > > > > If you implement cropping, you should use the crop API, not the > > > > > > scaling API > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > It's changing both - input and output sizes. > > > > > > > > Sure, but it's still cropping. > > > > > > Why? Isn't it a matter of the PoV? > > > > No it isn't. Cropping is cropping, regardless of how you look at it. > > > > > It changes the output window, i.e., implements S_FMT. And S_FMT is by > > > far more important / widely used than S_CROP. Refusing to change the > > > output window and always just returning the == crop size wouldn't be > > > polite, IMHO. > > > > If your sensor has no scaler the output size is equal to the crop > > rectangle. There's no way around that, and there's no reason to have the > > driver behave otherwise. > > > > > Don't think many users would guess to use S_CROP. > > > > Users who want to crop use S_CROP. > > > > > Standard applications a la mplayer don't use S_CROP at all. > > > > That's because they don't want to crop. mplayer expects the driver to > > perform scaling when it calls S_FMT, and users won't be happy if you > > crop instead. > > So, here's my opinion, based on the V4L2 spec. I'm going to base on this > and pull this patch into my tree and let Mauro decide, unless he expresses > his negative opinion before that. > > The spec defines S_FMT as an operation to set the output (in case of a > capture device) frame format. Which this driver clearly does. The output > format should be set, using scaling, however, if the driver or the > hardware are unable to preserve the exact same input rectangle to satisfy > the request, the driver is also allowed to change the cropping rectangle > _as much as necessary_ - S_FMT takes precedence. This has been discussed > before, and the conclusion was - of the two geometry calls (S_FMT and > S_CROP) the last call overrides previous setting of the opposite geometry. > > It also defines S_CROP as an operation to set the cropping rectangle. The > driver is also allowed to change the output window, if it cannot be > preserved. Similarly, the last call wins. > > Ideally in this situation I would implement both S_CROP and S_FMT and let > both change the opposite window as needed, which in this case means set it > equal to the one, being configured. Since most applications are primarily > interested in the S_FMT call to configure their user interface, I find it > a wrong approach to refuse S_FMT and always return the current cropping > rectangle. In such a case the application will possibly be stuck with some > default output rectangle, because it certainly will _not_ guess to use > S_CROP to configure it. Whereas if we implement S_FMT with a constant 1:1 > scale the application will get the required UI size. I agree, that > changing the view area, while changing the output window, is not exactly > what the user expects, but it's better than presenting all applications > with a fixed, possibly completely unsuitable, UI window. -- 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
