Hi everybody, On 01/04/2012 10:07 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >> Thus we would three levels of controls for camera, >> 1) image source class (lowest possible level), dealing mostly with hardware >> registers; > > I intended the image source class for controls which only deal with the a/d > conversion itself. Other controls would be elsewhere. > > There hasn't been a final decision on this yet, but an alternative which has > been also discussed is just to call this a "low level" control class. > >> 2) "normal" camera controls (V4L2_CID_CAMERA_CLASS) [2]; >> 3) high level camera controls (for camera software algorithms) ... > >> I'm afraid a little it might be hard to distinguish if some control should >> belong to 2) or 3), as sensors' logic complexity and advancement varies. > > I can see two main use cases: > > 1. V4L2 / V4L2 subdev / MC as the low level API for camera control and > > 2. Regular V4L2 applications. > > For most controls it's clear which of the two classes they belong to. Have you any ideas on what the class' name could be ? I thought about V4L2_CTRL_CLASS_HIGH_LEVEL_CAMERA or V4L2_CTRL_CLASS_CAMERA_USER although I'm not too happy with any of them and it seems hard to make up some reasonable name, when we already have V4L2_CTRL_CLASS_CAMERA. >> Although I can see an advantage of logically separating controls which have >> influence on one or more other (lower level) controls. And separate control >> class would be helpful in that. >> >> The candidates to such control class might be: >> >> * V4L2_CID_METERING_MODE, >> * V4L2_CID_EXPOSURE_BIAS, >> * V4L2_CID_ISO, >> * V4L2_CID_WHITE_BALANCE_PRESET, >> * V4L2_CID_SCENEMODE, >> * V4L2_CID_WDR, >> * V4L2_CID_ANTISHAKE, > > The list looks good to me. -- Thanks, Sylwester -- 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
