On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:56:40AM +0000, Bastian Hecht wrote: > Hello Sakari! Hi Bastian, > 2011/9/6 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx>: > > Hi Bastian, > > > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 09:32:55AM +0000, Bastian Hecht wrote: > >> 2011/9/1 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx>: > >> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 11:14:08AM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > >> >> Hi Sakari, > >> >> > >> >> On 09/01/2011 10:47 AM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >> >> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 09:15:20AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 03:27:49PM +0000, Bastian Hecht wrote: > >> >> >>>> 2011/8/28 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> >> >>> [clip] > >> >> >>>>> If I'm not mistaken V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE is deprecated. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> I checked at http://v4l2spec.bytesex.org/spec/x542.htm, googled > >> >> >>>> "V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE deprecated" and read > >> >> >>>> Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt. I couldn't find anything. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Hmm. Did you happen to check when that has been written? :) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Please use this one instead: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> <URL:http://hverkuil.home.xs4all.nl/spec/media.html> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "Drivers can also implement their own custom controls using > >> >> >> V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE and higher values." > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Which specific location describes V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE differently there? > >> >> > > >> >> > That was a general comment, not related to the private base. There's no > >> >> > use for a three-year-old spec as a reference! > >> >> > > >> >> > The control framework does not support private controls, for example. The > >> >> > controls should be put to their own class in videodev2.h nowadays, that's my > >> >> > understanding. Cc Hans. > >> >> > >> >> Is this really the case that we close the door for private controls in > >> >> the mainline kernel ? Or am I misunderstanding something ? > >> >> How about v4l2_ctrl_new_custom() ? > >> >> > >> >> What if there are controls applicable to single driver only ? > >> >> Do we really want to have plenty of such in videodev2.h ? > >> > > >> > We have some of those already in videodev2.h. I'm not certain if I'm happy > >> > with this myself, considering e.g. that we could get a few truckloads of > >> > only camera lens hardware specific controls in the near future. > >> > >> So in my case (as these are controls that might be used by others too) > >> I should add something like > >> > >> #define V4L2_CID_BLUE_SATURATION (V4L2_CID_CAMERA_CLASS_BASE+19) > >> #define V4L2_CID_RED_SATURATION (V4L2_CID_CAMERA_CLASS_BASE+20) > > > > What do these two controls do? Do they control gain or something else? > > Hmm. Maybe I named them a bit unsharp. It is the U Saturation and V > Saturation. To me it looks like turning up the saturation in HSV > space, but only for either the blue or the red channel. This would > correspond to V4L2_CID_{RED,BLUE}_BALANCE when I read the docs. They > say it is "{Red,Blue} chroma balance". > > I have other controls for that I used V4L2_CID_{RED,BLUE}_BALANCE. > These are gains. So in fact I should swap them in my code and the > remaining question is, how to name the red and blue gain controls. I think Laurent had a similar issue in his Aptina sensor driver. In my opinion we need a class for low level controls such as the gain ones. Do I understand correctly they control the red and blue pixel gain in the sensor pixel matrix? Do you also have gain controls for the two greens? > >> #define V4L2_CID_GRAY_SCALE_IMAGE (V4L2_CID_CAMERA_CLASS_BASE+21) > > > > V4L2_CID_COLOR_KILLER looks like something which would fit for the purpose. > > Oh great! So I just take this. > > >> #define V4L2_CID_SOLARIZE_EFFECT (V4L2_CID_CAMERA_CLASS_BASE+22) > > > > Sounds interesting for a sensor. I wonder if this would fall under a menu > > control, V4L2_CID_COLORFX. > > When I read the the possible enums for V4L2_CID_COLORFX, it indeed > sounds very much like my solarize effect should be added there too. I > found V4L2_COLORFX_BW there, too. Isn't that a duplicate of the color > killer control then? In my opinion V4L2_CID_COLORFX should never be implemented in drivers for which the hardware doesn't implement these effects in a non-parametrisable way. This control was originally added for the OMAP 3 ISP driver but the driver never implemented it. I think you have a valid case using this control. I think the main difference between the two is that V4L2_COLORFX_BW is something that you can't use with other effects while V4L2_CID_COLOR_KILLER can be used with any of the effects. Based on your original proposal the black/white should stay as a separate control but the solarise should be configurable through V4L2_CID_COLORFX menu control. So it boils down to the question whether you can use them at the same time. -- Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx jabber/XMPP/Gmail: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
