From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Starkey Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 18/20] lib: image-formats: Add v4l2 formats support Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:15:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20190320181553.radwlhapzn464dlh@DESKTOP-E1NTVVP.localdomain> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <4811124997DA2F4383E90C1A9A8E2083@eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Dufresne Cc: Maxime Ripard , Daniel Vetter , David Airlie , Maarten Lankhorst , Sean Paul , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Sakari Ailus , Hans Verkuil , Laurent Pinchart , Thomas Petazzoni , Paul Kocialkowski , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-media@vger.kernel.org" , nd List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:29:18PM -0400, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > All RGB mapping should be surrounded by ifdef, because many (not all) > DRM formats represent the order of component when placed in a CPU > register, unlike V4L2 which uses memory order. I've pick this one > randomly, but this one on most system, little endian, will match > V4L2_PIX_FMT_XBGR32. This type of complex mapping can be found in > multiple places, notably in GStreamer: >=20 > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gstreamer/gst-plugins-bad/blob/master/sys/= kms/gstkmsutils.c#L45 >=20 I do sort-of wonder if it's worth trying to switch to common fourccs between DRM and V4L2 (and whatever else there is). The V4L2 formats list is quite incomplete and a little quirky in places (V4L2_PIX_FORMAT_XBGR32 and V4L2_PIX_FORMAT_XRGB32 naming inconsistency being one. 'X' isn't even next to 'B' in XBGR32). At least for newly-added formats, not using a common definition doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Longer term, I also don't really see any downsides to unification. -Brian