Re: bttv driver bug: VIDIOC_ENUMSTD returns wrong NTSC value

[Trent Piepho <xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Daniel [iso-8859-1] Glöckner wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:37:34AM -0800, Trent Piepho wrote:
> > The bt848 chip does support NTSC-JP, I guess no one has bothered to add it.
>
> It has already been added to bttv as a separate standard. It can't be merged
> with plain NTSC because it needs a different value for the IFORM register.

That's strange, the original poster said:

> > bttv reports NTSC as 36864  0x9000  1001000000000000
> > ( V4L2_STD_NTSC_M | V4L2_STD_NTSC_M_KR )

He's saying bttv does _not_ report NTSC-JP as a supported standard.  Yet
you're right, NTSC-JP is listed along with all the other standards in the
bttv source.

I don't have time to test this.  Maybe the original poster was mistaken, or
maybe there is a bug in the code that provides the bitmask?

Having NTSC-M-JP be it's own standard is the correct thing to do, IMHO.
It's having NTSC-M-KR as another standard that's wrong, since there is no
difference in the video signal.

--
video4linux-list mailing list
Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list