On 02/10/2012 11:33 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > >> On 02/10/2012 09:42 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >>> ...thinking about this interleaved data, is there anything else left, that >>> the following scheme would be failing to describe: >>> >>> * The data is sent in repeated blocks (periods) >> >> The data is sent in irregular chunks of varying size (few hundred of bytes >> for example). > > Right, the data includes headers. How about sensors providing > header-parsing callbacks? This implies processing of headers/footers in kernel space to some generic format. It might work, but sometimes there might be an unwanted performance loss. However I wouldn't expect it to be that significant, depends on how the format of an embedded data from the sensor looks like. Processing 4KiB of data could be acceptable. I'm assuming here, we want to convert the frame embedded (meta) data for each sensor to some generic description format ? It would have to be then relatively simple, not to increase the frame header size unnecessarily. -- 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
