Re: [PATCH v6 00/39] i.MX Media Driver

[Steve Longerbeam]

On 03/30/2017 04:02 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> This fails at step 1.  The removal of the frame interval support now
> means my setup script fails when trying to set the frame interval on
> the camera:
>
> Enumerating pads and links
> Setting up format SRGGB8_1X8 816x616 on pad imx219 0-0010/0
> Format set: SRGGB8_1X8 816x616
> Setting up frame interval 1/25 on pad imx219 0-0010/0
> Frame interval set: 1/25
> Setting up format SRGGB8_1X8 816x616 on pad imx6-mipi-csi2/0
> Format set: SRGGB8_1X8 816x616
> Setting up frame interval 1/25 on pad imx6-mipi-csi2/0
> Unable to set frame interval: Inappropriate ioctl for device (-25)Unable to setup formats: Inappropriate ioctl for device (25)
>
> This is because media-ctl tries to propagate it from the imx219 source
> pad to the csi2 sink pad, and the csi2 now fails that ioctl.

I assume you're using Philipp's frame interval patches to media-ctl.
Can you make the frame interval propagation optional in those patches?
I.e. don't error-out with a failure code if the ioctl returns ENOTTY.

Steve

> This makes media-ctl return a failure code, which means that it's not
> possible for a script to determine whether the failure was due to the
> camera setup or something else.  So, we have to assume that the
> whole command failed.
>
> This is completely broken, and I'm even more convinced that those
> arguing for this behaviour really have not thought it through well
> enough before demanding that this code was removed.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the end result is completely broken and
> unusable.  I'm going to be merging the frame interval support back
> into my test tree, because that's the only sane thing to do.
>
> If v4l2 people want to object to having frame interval support present
> for all subdevs, then _they_ need to make sure that the rest of their
> software conforms to what they're telling people to do.