From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.33]:4708 "EHLO smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750766Ab2GUMbq (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2012 08:31:46 -0400 From: Hans Verkuil To: Sylwester Nawrocki Subject: Re: Media summit at the Kernel Summit - was: Fwd: Re: [Ksummit-2012-discuss] Organising Mini Summits within the Kernel Summit Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:31:02 +0200 Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux Media Mailing List , workshop-2011@linuxtv.org References: <20120713173708.GB17109@thunk.org> <201207172132.22937.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> <500A9D96.5050708@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <500A9D96.5050708@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201207211431.02594.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat July 21 2012 14:16:22 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On 07/17/2012 09:32 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > On Tue July 17 2012 19:30:53 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >> As we did in 2012, we're planning to do a media summit again at KS/2012. > >> > >> The KS/2012 will happen in San Diego, CA, US, between Aug 26-28, just > >> before the LinuxCon North America. > >> > >> In order to do it, I'd like to know who is interested on participate, > >> and to get proposals about what subjects will be discussed there, > >> in order to start planning the agenda. > > > > I'd like to have 30 minutes to discuss a few V4L2 API ambiguities or just > > plain weirdness, just like I did last year. I'll make an RFC issues to discuss > > beforehand. I might also have a short presentation/demo of v4l2-compliance, as > > I believe more people need to know about that utility. > > What do you think about adding new M2M capability flag for memory-to-memory > video devices ? I prepared an RFC patch for that already: > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@vger.kernel.org/msg48497.html > > I think that at least qualifies to your list of V4L2 API ambiguities, even > though we have device_caps now. Using ORed OUTPUT and CAPTURE flags implies > all existing applications must check now both flags when they're trying to > discover a video capture or video output device. I agree. I've added to my list (which is getting pretty long BTW, I will probably need more than 30 minutes). When adding support for M2M devices to v4l2-compliance I also noticed that using CAPTURE+OUTPUT is a rather awkward way to signal this capability, so I agree to adding a special cap bit for that. Regards, Hans