On 08/03/2016 09:58 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 06:55 PM, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
>> On 08/03/2016 06:21 AM, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
>>> On 2016-08-02 17:00:07 +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/adv7180.c b/drivers/media/i2c/adv7180.c
>>>>> index a8b434b..c6fed71 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/adv7180.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/adv7180.c
>>>>> @@ -680,10 +680,13 @@ static int adv7180_set_pad_format(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>>>>> switch (format->format.field) {
>>>>> case V4L2_FIELD_NONE:
>>>>> if (!(state->chip_info->flags & ADV7180_FLAG_I2P))
>>>>> - format->format.field = V4L2_FIELD_INTERLACED;
>>>>> + format->format.field = V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE;
>>>>> break;
>>>>> default:
>>>>> - format->format.field = V4L2_FIELD_INTERLACED;
>>>>> + if (state->chip_info->flags & ADV7180_FLAG_I2P)
>>>>> + format->format.field = V4L2_FIELD_INTERLACED;
>>>> I'm not convinced this is correct. As far as I understand it when the I2P
>>>> feature is enabled the core outputs full progressive frames at the full
>>>> framerate. If it is bypassed it outputs half-frames. So we have the option
>>>> of either V4L2_FIELD_NONE or V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE, but never interlaced. I
>>>> think this branch should setup the field format to be ALTERNATE regardless
>>>> of whether the I2P feature is available.
>>> I be happy to update the patch in such manner, but I feel this is more
>>> for Steven to handle. I have no deep understanding of the adv7180 driver
>>> and the only HW I have is the adv7180 and not adv7280, adv7280_m,
>>> adv7282 or adv7282_m which is the models which have the ADV7180_FLAG_I2P
>>> flag. So I can't really test such a change.
>>>
>>> Steven do you want to update this patch and resend it?
>> Hi Niklas, I can update this patch, but it sounds like the whole thing
>> is "up in the air" at this point, and we may want to yank out the I2P
>> support altogether. I'll leave it up to Lars and others to work that out
>> first.
> Yeah, we should remove the whole I2P stuff, I was misinformed about how it
> works. But either way I think this patch should simply not touch the current
> behavior, so don't add new if (FLAG_I2P) checks.
Hi Lars, Ok I can do that. I'll resubmit in next version of my patchset.
Steve
