Re: V4L2_PIX_FMT_RAW
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:20:48 +0100
- From: Daniel Glöckner <daniel-gl@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: V4L2_PIX_FMT_RAW
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:02:39AM +0100, H. Willstrand wrote:
> What's the problem with having a name of the formalized data in the
> video stream? ie raw do not mean undefined.
I thought you wanted to avoid having to define V4L2_PIX_FMT_x for an
exploding number of proprietary formats that are quite similar but still
incompatible. It makes sense for formats that are used by more than one
driver.
> I don't see how separate RAW ioctl's will add value to the V4l2 API,
> it fits into the current API.
Yes, it does. Each driver having multiple raw formats just needs a
private control id to select one.
Daniel
--
video4linux-list mailing list
Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list