Philipp Zabel <p.za...@pengutronix.de> writes: > This is ok in this patch, but we can't use this check in the following > TRY_FMT patch as there is no way to interweave > SEQ_TB -> INTERLACED_BT (because in SEQ_TB the B field is newer than T, > but in INTERLACED_BT it has to be older) or SEQ_BT -> INTERLACED_TB (the > other way around).
Actually we can do SEQ_TB -> INTERLACED_BT and SEQ_BT -> INTERLACED_TB rather easily. We only need to skip a single field at start :-) That's what CCIR_CODE_* registers do. To be honest, SEQ_TB and SEQ_BT are precisely the same thing (i.e., SEQUENTIAL). It's up to the user to say which field is the first. There is the progressive sensor exception, though, and the TB/BT could be a hint for downstream elements (i.e., setting the default field order). But I think we should be able to request INTERLACED_TB or INTERLACED_BT (with any analog signal on input) and the CCIR_CODE registers should be set accordingly. This should all magically work fine. -- Krzysztof Halasa Industrial Research Institute for Automation and Measurements PIAP Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warsaw, Poland
