On 9 July 2012 10:19, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 09.07.2012, 10:07 +0200 schrieb javier Martin:
> [...]
>> >> +static int vidioc_s_parm(struct file *file, void *priv, struct v4l2_streamparm *a)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct coda_ctx *ctx = fh_to_ctx(priv);
>> >> +
>> >> + if (a->type == V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_OUTPUT) {
>> >> + if (a->parm.output.timeperframe.numerator != 1) {
>> >> + v4l2_err(&ctx->dev->v4l2_dev,
>> >> + "FPS numerator must be 1\n");
>> >> + return -EINVAL;
>> >> + }
>> >> + ctx->params.framerate =
>> >> + a->parm.output.timeperframe.denominator;
>> >> + } else {
>> >> + v4l2_err(&ctx->dev->v4l2_dev,
>> >> + "Setting FPS is only possible for the output queue\n");
>> >> + return -EINVAL;
>> >
>> > Why disallow setting timeperframe on the capture side? Shouldn't it
>> > rather succeed without setting anything and return the current context's
>> > frame rate instead?
>> >
>> >> + }
>> >> + return 0;
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> +static int vidioc_g_parm(struct file *file, void *priv, struct v4l2_streamparm *a)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct coda_ctx *ctx = fh_to_ctx(priv);
>> >> +
>> >> + if (a->type == V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_OUTPUT) {
>> >> + a->parm.output.timeperframe.denominator =
>> >> + ctx->params.framerate;
>> >> + a->parm.output.timeperframe.numerator = 1;
>> >> + } else {
>> >> + v4l2_err(&ctx->dev->v4l2_dev,
>> >> + "Getting FPS is only possible for the output queue\n");
>> >
>> > The nominal capture side timeperframe should match that of the output
>> > side.
>> >
>> > Actually, I'm not sure if this needs to be implemented at all, since
>> > V4L2_CAP_TIMEPERFRAME is not set and capture frame dropping / output
>> > frame duplication is not supported.
>>
>> I am just following the steps of Samsung here:
>>
>> http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4.4/drivers/media/video/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_enc.c#L1439
>> http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4.4/drivers/media/video/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_opr.c#L775
>>
>
> I don't think this is completely correct either. According to the V4L2
> spec, setting timeperframe from an application is meant to make the
> driver skip or duplicate frames to save bandwidth:
>
> http://v4l2spec.bytesex.org/spec-single/v4l2.html#VIDIOC-G-PARM
>
> So returning -EINVAL is not necessarily incorrect, as we can choose not
> to support this ioctl - but claiming support for the output side (and
> then doing nothing) but returning an error on the capture side seems a
> bit inconsistent to me.
I'll remove it since we don't use it either way.
--
Javier Martin
Vista Silicon S.L.
CDTUC - FASE C - Oficina S-345
Avda de los Castros s/n
39005- Santander. Cantabria. Spain
+34 942 25 32 60
www.vista-silicon.com
--
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
