Hi Hans, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On Tue 31 July 2012 13:17:50 Sakari Ailus wrote: >> Hi Hans and Laurent, >> >> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 09:19:13PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: ... >>> And make a new pixel format if you have hardware that doesn't use zero? I think >>> it's overkill IMHO. >> >> Could be. But I've seen only zero being used. >> >> Applications that need to process raw bayer images optimally are often very >> hardware specific anyway, adding the assumption that the dummy bits are zero >> isn't a big deal. The same might not apply as universally to yuv colour >> space but on the other hand one extra and operation just won't take that >> much time either. > > My experience is with encoders and decoders. Anyway, we're not using this format, > and neither will we ever upstream a pixel or mbus format since it is all highly > specific to our products, so there is no point in upstreaming. So I am actually > OK with saying that these bits should be 0, provided 'D' is replaced by 'Z'. > > But I still think keeping it 'D' and allowing for any value is more generic > and I expect that it is sufficient. > >> I'm fine with defining the bits are dummy. I just wanted we make an informed >> decision on this, and as far as I see that's now been reached. >> >> Acked-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> > > OK, then we all agree to keep PATCHv7 as is? Yes. If we later see that we need to use the format (I was thinking in-memory formats instead of media bus pixel codes, but apparently replied to this patch instead) to tell especially the unused bits are zero we can start creating more formats, but I feel it's unlikely we'd get there. Kind regards, -- Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@xxxxxx -- 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
