[libcamera-devel] [PATCH v2 2/4] libcamera: camera_sensor: Set default sensor location to Unknown

[Niklas Söderlund]

Hello Paul,

Thanks for your work.

On 2021-02-12 14:48:14 +0900, Paul Elder wrote:
> Instead of choosing some arbitrary location for the sensor when its
> location is unknown, set it explicitly to unknown.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul Elder <paul.elder at ideasonboard.com>
> Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham at ideasonboard.com>
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>
> 
> ---
> No change in v2
> ---
>  src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp b/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp
> index c9e8d49b..474055ba 100644
> --- a/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp
> +++ b/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp
> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ int CameraSensor::initProperties()
>  			break;
>  		}
>  	} else {
> -		propertyValue = properties::CameraLocationExternal;
> +		propertyValue = properties::CameraLocationUnknown;

I'm still unconvinced about the use-case for unknown :-)

To me it looks like we are pushing the problem of an incomplete firmware 
description on to applications. How should an application handle a 
external camera vs an unknown one?

I would like to understand the advantage of adding a new location here 
other then just to pass a CTS test that as far as I understands it fails 
as the device it's running on have incomplete firmware. Is that not a 
valid fail of CTS?

>  	}
>  	properties_.set(properties::Location, propertyValue);
>  
> -- 
> 2.27.0
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libcamera-devel mailing list
> libcamera-devel at lists.libcamera.org
> https://lists.libcamera.org/listinfo/libcamera-devel

-- 
Regards,
Niklas Söderlund