lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 00/39] i.MX Media Driver
    From
    Date


    On 03/30/2017 04:02 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
    > This fails at step 1. The removal of the frame interval support now
    > means my setup script fails when trying to set the frame interval on
    > the camera:
    >
    > Enumerating pads and links
    > Setting up format SRGGB8_1X8 816x616 on pad imx219 0-0010/0
    > Format set: SRGGB8_1X8 816x616
    > Setting up frame interval 1/25 on pad imx219 0-0010/0
    > Frame interval set: 1/25
    > Setting up format SRGGB8_1X8 816x616 on pad imx6-mipi-csi2/0
    > Format set: SRGGB8_1X8 816x616
    > Setting up frame interval 1/25 on pad imx6-mipi-csi2/0
    > Unable to set frame interval: Inappropriate ioctl for device (-25)Unable to setup formats: Inappropriate ioctl for device (25)
    >
    > This is because media-ctl tries to propagate it from the imx219 source
    > pad to the csi2 sink pad, and the csi2 now fails that ioctl.

    I assume you're using Philipp's frame interval patches to media-ctl.
    Can you make the frame interval propagation optional in those patches?
    I.e. don't error-out with a failure code if the ioctl returns ENOTTY.

    Steve

    >
    > This makes media-ctl return a failure code, which means that it's not
    > possible for a script to determine whether the failure was due to the
    > camera setup or something else. So, we have to assume that the
    > whole command failed.
    >
    > This is completely broken, and I'm even more convinced that those
    > arguing for this behaviour really have not thought it through well
    > enough before demanding that this code was removed.
    >
    > As far as I'm concerned, the end result is completely broken and
    > unusable. I'm going to be merging the frame interval support back
    > into my test tree, because that's the only sane thing to do.
    >
    > If v4l2 people want to object to having frame interval support present
    > for all subdevs, then _they_ need to make sure that the rest of their
    > software conforms to what they're telling people to do.
    >

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-03-30 18:13    [W:3.193 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site