Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 0/1] cameraif: add ABI for para-virtual camera

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 12.03.19 at 09:48, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/03/2019 09:19, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Hello!
>> 
>> At the moment Xen [1] already supports some virtual multimedia
>> features [2] such as virtual display, sound. It supports keyboards,
>> pointers and multi-touch devices all allowing Xen to be used in
>> automotive appliances, In-Vehicle Infotainment (IVI) systems
>> and many more.
>> 
>> Frontend implementation is available at [3] and the corresponding
>> backend at [4]. These are work in progress, but frontend already
>> passes v4l2-compliance test for V4L2 drivers. libxl preliminary
>> changes are available at [5].
>> 
>> This work adds a new Xen para-virtualized protocol for a virtual
>> camera device which extends multimedia capabilities of Xen even
>> farther: video conferencing, IVI, high definition maps etc.
>> 
>> The initial goal is to support most needed functionality with the
>> final idea to make it possible to extend the protocol if need be:
>> 
>> 1. Provide means for base virtual device configuration:
>>  - pixel formats
>>  - resolutions
>>  - frame rates
>> 2. Support basic camera controls:
>>  - contrast
>>  - brightness
>>  - hue
>>  - saturation
>> 3. Support streaming control
> 
> So since the first post in July 2018 there has been no reaction from
> Konrad to this interface. I guess he has plenty of other things to do.

Having gone through all the versions' threads (just their titles) I can't
find any explicit ping to him. Yes, five versions should have been
enough to draw attention, but then again this may have indicated to
him that things are still too much in flux.

> Maybe it would be a good idea to add someone else as a maintainer for
> the "PUBLIC I/O INTERFACES AND PV DRIVERS DESIGNS" section in
> MAINTAINERS to avoid such stalls in the future?

Well, iirc he had volunteered himself for that role, so I guess the
preferred action in such a case would be for him to also step back if
his other duties no longer permit him fulfilling the maintainer role here.
Without the specific MAINTAINERS entry, as in the old days, THE
REST would assume responsibility again, which personally I'd prefer
over adding a second individual to the section. Unless someone else
(like you) volunteered again.

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel