| Message ID | 20190916100433.24367-1-hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add helper functions to print a fourcc | expand |
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:04:31PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > It turns out that Sakari posted a newer patch in 2018. I used that > for this v2: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/48372/ > > Mauro commented on that original patch that there was no need to > have this available for userspace. > > I disagree: why wouldn't userspace want to report pixelformats? > > It happens in several places in v4l-utils, and there the pixelformats are > printed in different ways as well. Providing a standard way of reporting > a V4L2 fourcc is very useful. Thanks, Hans! Can you take these to your tree (perhaps pending some sort of agreement with Mauro)?
On 9/16/19 1:52 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:04:31PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >> It turns out that Sakari posted a newer patch in 2018. I used that >> for this v2: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/48372/ >> >> Mauro commented on that original patch that there was no need to >> have this available for userspace. >> >> I disagree: why wouldn't userspace want to report pixelformats? >> >> It happens in several places in v4l-utils, and there the pixelformats are >> printed in different ways as well. Providing a standard way of reporting >> a V4L2 fourcc is very useful. > > Thanks, Hans! > > Can you take these to your tree (perhaps pending some sort of agreement > with Mauro)? > Certainly. Hans
Hi Hans. On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 13:00, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > On 9/16/19 1:52 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:04:31PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > >> It turns out that Sakari posted a newer patch in 2018. I used that > >> for this v2: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/48372/ > >> > >> Mauro commented on that original patch that there was no need to > >> have this available for userspace. > >> > >> I disagree: why wouldn't userspace want to report pixelformats? > >> > >> It happens in several places in v4l-utils, and there the pixelformats are > >> printed in different ways as well. Providing a standard way of reporting > >> a V4L2 fourcc is very useful. > > > > Thanks, Hans! > > > > Can you take these to your tree (perhaps pending some sort of agreement > > with Mauro)? > > > > Certainly. > > Hans What happened to these? Patchwork is flagging them as rejected[1], but there's only been positive responses to them on the mailing list. Thanks. Dave [1] https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/58781/ and https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/58780/
Hi Hans, On 29/01/2020 11:52, Dave Stevenson wrote: > Hi Hans. > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 13:00, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >> On 9/16/19 1:52 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:04:31PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >>>> It turns out that Sakari posted a newer patch in 2018. I used that >>>> for this v2: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/48372/ >>>> >>>> Mauro commented on that original patch that there was no need to >>>> have this available for userspace. >>>> >>>> I disagree: why wouldn't userspace want to report pixelformats? Indeed. I've just had to hand code this for libcamera. (Though, being C++, I don't think I could have used these macros anyway) >>>> It happens in several places in v4l-utils, and there the pixelformats are >>>> printed in different ways as well. Providing a standard way of reporting >>>> a V4L2 fourcc is very useful. >>> >>> Thanks, Hans! >>> >>> Can you take these to your tree (perhaps pending some sort of agreement >>> with Mauro)? >>> >> >> Certainly. >> >> Hans > > What happened to these? Patchwork is flagging them as rejected[1], but > there's only been positive responses to them on the mailing list. I'll add another +1 ... -- Kieran > > Thanks. > Dave > > [1] https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/58781/ and > https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/58780/
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 11:52, Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com> wrote: > > Hi Hans. > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 13:00, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > On 9/16/19 1:52 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:04:31PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > >> It turns out that Sakari posted a newer patch in 2018. I used that > > >> for this v2: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/48372/ > > >> > > >> Mauro commented on that original patch that there was no need to > > >> have this available for userspace. > > >> > > >> I disagree: why wouldn't userspace want to report pixelformats? > > >> > > >> It happens in several places in v4l-utils, and there the pixelformats are > > >> printed in different ways as well. Providing a standard way of reporting > > >> a V4L2 fourcc is very useful. > > > > > > Thanks, Hans! > > > > > > Can you take these to your tree (perhaps pending some sort of agreement > > > with Mauro)? > > > > > > > Certainly. > > > > Hans > > What happened to these? Patchwork is flagging them as rejected[1], but > there's only been positive responses to them on the mailing list. Ping. Why were these patches rejected? Dave > Thanks. > Dave > > [1] https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/58781/ and > https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/58780/
Hi Dave, On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:44PM +0000, Dave Stevenson wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 11:52, Dave Stevenson > <dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Hans. > > > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 13:00, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/16/19 1:52 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:04:31PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > >> It turns out that Sakari posted a newer patch in 2018. I used that > > > >> for this v2: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/48372/ > > > >> > > > >> Mauro commented on that original patch that there was no need to > > > >> have this available for userspace. > > > >> > > > >> I disagree: why wouldn't userspace want to report pixelformats? > > > >> > > > >> It happens in several places in v4l-utils, and there the pixelformats are > > > >> printed in different ways as well. Providing a standard way of reporting > > > >> a V4L2 fourcc is very useful. > > > > > > > > Thanks, Hans! > > > > > > > > Can you take these to your tree (perhaps pending some sort of agreement > > > > with Mauro)? > > > > > > > > > > Certainly. > > > > > > Hans > > > > What happened to these? Patchwork is flagging them as rejected[1], but > > there's only been positive responses to them on the mailing list. > > Ping. Why were these patches rejected? This was discussed on media-maint channel. The log is here: <URL:https://linuxtv.org/irc/irclogger_log/media-maint?date=2020-02-06,Thu&raw=on>
Hi Sakari On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 11:28, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi> wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:44PM +0000, Dave Stevenson wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 11:52, Dave Stevenson > > <dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Hans. > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 13:00, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9/16/19 1:52 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:04:31PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > > >> It turns out that Sakari posted a newer patch in 2018. I used that > > > > >> for this v2: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/48372/ > > > > >> > > > > >> Mauro commented on that original patch that there was no need to > > > > >> have this available for userspace. > > > > >> > > > > >> I disagree: why wouldn't userspace want to report pixelformats? > > > > >> > > > > >> It happens in several places in v4l-utils, and there the pixelformats are > > > > >> printed in different ways as well. Providing a standard way of reporting > > > > >> a V4L2 fourcc is very useful. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Hans! > > > > > > > > > > Can you take these to your tree (perhaps pending some sort of agreement > > > > > with Mauro)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Certainly. > > > > > > > > Hans > > > > > > What happened to these? Patchwork is flagging them as rejected[1], but > > > there's only been positive responses to them on the mailing list. > > > > Ping. Why were these patches rejected? > > This was discussed on media-maint channel. The log is here: > > <URL:https://linuxtv.org/irc/irclogger_log/media-maint?date=2020-02-06,Thu&raw=on> Thanks, it's useful to know what's going on. The patchwork information was pretty opaque. The log includes [12:41] <sailus> If you insist, I can write a patch, and put your Suggested-by: tag there. :^) [12:41] <mchehab> yeah, please do so [12:42] <mchehab> the best is to also c/c drm ML Has that happened and I've missed it, or is it still on the pending queue? Dave
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 03:05:59PM +0100, Dave Stevenson wrote: > Hi Sakari > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 11:28, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:44PM +0000, Dave Stevenson wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 11:52, Dave Stevenson > > > <dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Hans. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 13:00, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 9/16/19 1:52 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:04:31PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > > > >> It turns out that Sakari posted a newer patch in 2018. I used that > > > > > >> for this v2: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/48372/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Mauro commented on that original patch that there was no need to > > > > > >> have this available for userspace. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I disagree: why wouldn't userspace want to report pixelformats? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It happens in several places in v4l-utils, and there the pixelformats are > > > > > >> printed in different ways as well. Providing a standard way of reporting > > > > > >> a V4L2 fourcc is very useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Hans! > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you take these to your tree (perhaps pending some sort of agreement > > > > > > with Mauro)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Certainly. > > > > > > > > > > Hans > > > > > > > > What happened to these? Patchwork is flagging them as rejected[1], but > > > > there's only been positive responses to them on the mailing list. > > > > > > Ping. Why were these patches rejected? > > > > This was discussed on media-maint channel. The log is here: > > > > <URL:https://linuxtv.org/irc/irclogger_log/media-maint?date=2020-02-06,Thu&raw=on> > > Thanks, it's useful to know what's going on. The patchwork information > was pretty opaque. > > The log includes > [12:41] <sailus> If you insist, I can write a patch, and put your > Suggested-by: tag there. :^) > [12:41] <mchehab> yeah, please do so > [12:42] <mchehab> the best is to also c/c drm ML > Has that happened and I've missed it, or is it still on the pending queue? Looking at the log reminded me to write it. :-) I'll test it first and then send it --- I'll cc you as well.