Hi Laurent, Am Montag, den 25.08.2014, 17:47 +0200 schrieb Laurent Pinchart: > > Yes, I think this is slightly over the edge. Is room for a function to > > accompany the preexisting v4l2_fill_pix_format (say, > > v4l2_fill_pix_format_size) to set both the bytesperline and sizeimage > > values in a struct v4l2_pix_format? > > That sounds sensible to me, provided it would be used by drivers of course. I > wouldn't remove v4l2_bytesperline() and v4l2_sizeimage(), as the values might > be needed by drivers in places where a v4l2_pix_format structure isn't > available.
I think about four of the drivers I've looked at so far could use such a function, but it probably won't be useful for the majority. > > Also, is anybody bothered by the v4l2_pix_format / v4l2_pixfmt > > similarity in name? > > How about renaming v4l2_pixfmt to v4l2_pix_format_info ? Thanks, but v4l2_pix_format is a userspace API structure. I fear renaming v4l2_pixfmt to v4l2_pix_format_anything would rather strengthen that association, while I'd like to achieve the opposite. regards Philipp -- 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
