Hi Sylwester, On Thursday 02 February 2012 12:14:08 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > On 02/02/2012 10:55 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Do all those sensors interleave the data in the same way ? This sounds > > quite > No, each one uses it's own interleaving method. > > > hackish and vendor-specific to me, I'm not sure if we should try to > > generalize that. Maybe vendor-specific media bus format codes would be > > the way to go. I don't expect ISPs to understand the format, they will > > likely be configured in pass-through mode. Instead of adding explicit > > support for all those weird formats to all ISP drivers, it might make > > sense to add a "binary blob" media bus code to be used by the ISP. > > This could work, except that there is no way to match a fourcc with media > bus code. Different fourcc would map to same media bus code, making it > impossible for the brigde to handle multiple sensors or one sensor > supporting multiple interleaved formats. Moreover there is a need to map > media bus code to the MIPI-CSI data ID. What if one sensor sends "binary" > blob with MIPI-CSI "User Define Data 1" and the other with "User Define > Data 2" ? My gut feeling is that the information should be retrieved from the sensor driver. This is all pretty vendor-specific, and adding explicit support for such sensors to each bridge driver wouldn't be very clean. Could the bridge query the sensor using a subdev operation ? > Maybe we could create e.g. V4L2_MBUS_FMT_USER?, for each MIPI-CSI User > Defined data identifier, but as I remember it was decided not to map > MIPI-CSI data codes directly onto media bus pixel codes. Would setting the format directly on the sensor subdev be an option ? -- 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
