Hi Albert On Tue, 1 Jan 2013, Albert Wang wrote:
> >> + case V4L2_PIX_FMT_YUV422P: > >> + case V4L2_PIX_FMT_YUV420: > >> + case V4L2_PIX_FMT_YVU420: > >> + imgsz_w = (fmt->bytesperline * 4 / 3) & IMGSZ_H_MASK; > >> + widthy = fmt->width; > >> + widthuv = fmt->width / 2; > > > >I might be wrong, but the above doesn't look right to me. Firstly, YUV422P > >is a 4:2:2 format, whereas YUV420 and YVU420 are 4:2:0 formats, so, I > >would expect calculations for them to differ. Besides, bytesperline * 4 / > >3 doesn't look right for any of them. If this is what I think - total > >number of bytes per line, i.e., sizeimage / height, than shouldn't YAU422P > >have > >+ imgsz_w = fmt->bytesperline & IMGSZ_H_MASK; > >and the other two > >+ imgsz_w = (fmt->bytesperline * 3 / 2) & IMGSZ_H_MASK; > >? But maybe I'm wrong, please, double-check and confirm. > > > [Albert Wang] It looks they are both 12 bit planar format, they have same > imgsz_w. > Anyway, we will double check it after back to office. _Both_ YUV420 and YVU420 - yes, but YUV422P is 16-bit. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
