[{"id":18008,"web_url":"https://patchwork.libcamera.org/comment/18008/","msgid":"<693656ea-7c31-0126-e35b-61137980ea1f@ideasonboard.com>","date":"2021-07-07T10:35:19","subject":"Re: [libcamera-devel] [RFC PATCH] camera_sensor: Do not always\n\tprioritize aspect-ratios","submitter":{"id":4,"url":"https://patchwork.libcamera.org/api/people/4/","name":"Kieran Bingham","email":"kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com"},"content":"Hi Umang,\n\nOn 06/07/2021 15:22, Umang Jain wrote:\n> In some cases, the maximum sensor resolution will provide the best\n> aspect-ratio for a requested stream size. It may also happen that,\n> the difference between max sensor resolution's aspect-ratio vs a lower\n> sensor resolution aspect-ratio is very marginal(for e.g. <1%).\n> In such cases, we should actually lean towards the lower sensor\n> resolution.\n> \n> One of such cases is observed on nautilus, where all requested stream\n\ns/nautilus/$SENSOR_NAME/ (presumably IMX258\n\n> sizes seems to map to 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3. Even though, the aspect\n> ratios for lower sensor resolution aren't that far from 4208x3118.\n> For a stream size request of 1080p:\n>  - 1080p     = 1.777777778 (requested)\n> \n>  - 4208x3118 = 1.349583066 (originally selected)\n>  - 2104x1560 = 1.348717949\n>  - 1048x780  = 1.343589744\n> \n> This patch introduces some flexibility on part of sensor resolution\n> selection procedure. It attempts to provide a sensor resolution,\n> closest to the requested stream size, whilst keeping best aspect-ratio.\n\n/stream size/area/ ?\n\n\n> \n> Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>\n> \n> ---\n> - This patch has been written with \"[PATCH] camera_sensor: Remove\n>   redundant aspect-ratio check\" applied.\n> \n> - There is also known issue/handle on why IPU3 currently selects max\n>   sensor resolution config possible, we will use \"raw\" to see this patch\n>   in action.\n> \n> - Findings via cam:\n> \n> (master)\n> \n> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=640,height=320,role=raw\n> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n> [10:12:57.975110123] [550]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> [10:12:57.975199686] [550]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> Camera configuration adjusted\n> \n> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=1280,height=720,role=raw\n> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n> [10:14:23.492963456] [651]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> [10:14:23.493028736] [651]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> Camera configuration adjusted\n> \n> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=1920,height=1080,role=raw\n> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n> [10:14:34.020592838] [660]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> [10:14:34.020636493] [660]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> Camera configuration adjusted\n> \n> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=3840,height=2160,role=raw\n> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n> [10:15:20.530557765] [727]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> [10:15:20.530625404] [727]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> Camera configuration adjusted\n> \n> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=4200,height=3000,role=raw\n> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n> [10:15:33.027468976] [737]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> [10:15:33.027558684] [737]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> Camera configuration adjusted\n> \n> \n> (With this Patch)\n> \n> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=640,height=320,role=raw\n> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n> [10:19:04.270812870] [1457]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> [10:19:04.270859868] [1457]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 1048x780-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> Camera configuration adjusted\n> \n> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=1280,height=720,role=raw\n> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n> [10:19:15.515222045] [1465]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> [10:19:15.515265834] [1465]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 2104x1560-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> Camera configuration adjusted\n> \n> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=1920,height=1080,role=raw\n> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n> [10:19:23.333048232] [1471]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> [10:19:23.333101431] [1471]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 2104x1560-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> Camera configuration adjusted\n> \n> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=3840,height=2160,role=raw\n> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n> [10:19:29.774700339] [1480]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> [10:19:29.774800035] [1480]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> Camera configuration adjusted\n> \n> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=4200,height=3000,role=raw\n> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n> [10:19:59.786068223] [1541]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> [10:19:59.786176204] [1541]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n> Camera configuration adjusted\n\n\nThose findings looks quite encouraging indeed, and shows the requirement.\n\n\n> ---\n>  src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp | 9 ++++++++-\n>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)\n> \n> diff --git a/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp b/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp\n> index 1bf42acf..fb24480b 100644\n> --- a/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp\n> +++ b/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp\n> @@ -569,7 +569,14 @@ V4L2SubdeviceFormat CameraSensor::getFormat(const std::vector<unsigned int> &mbu\n>  \t\t\tunsigned int area = sz.width * sz.height;\n>  \t\t\tunsigned int areaDiff = area - desiredArea;\n>  \n> -\t\t\tif (ratioDiff > bestRatio)\n> +\t\t\t/*\n> +\t\t\t * Check if we have a better aspect ratio match than\n> +\t\t\t * whatever we have seen before. ~1% change is acceptable\n> +\t\t\t * if it leads to a selection of lower resolution below.\n> +\t\t\t */\n> +\t\t\tif (bestRatio == FLT_MAX)\n> +\t\t\t\tbestRatio = ratioDiff;\n> +\t\t\telse if (fabsf(ratioDiff - bestRatio) > 0.01)\n>  \t\t\t\tcontinue;\n>  \n\nI'm a little curious to be sure of the effects between this patch and\nthe preceding one.\n\nHave you run the checks above with only the previous patch?\n\nI.e. - could the lower resolutions that get picked be due to the change\nthat you no longer take a preference on aspect ratio (even ignoring the\n0.01) when the previous patch is applied?\n\n>  \t\t\tif (areaDiff < bestArea) {\n>","headers":{"Return-Path":"<libcamera-devel-bounces@lists.libcamera.org>","X-Original-To":"parsemail@patchwork.libcamera.org","Delivered-To":"parsemail@patchwork.libcamera.org","Received":["from lancelot.ideasonboard.com (lancelot.ideasonboard.com\n\t[92.243.16.209])\n\tby patchwork.libcamera.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BB10BD794\n\tfor <parsemail@patchwork.libcamera.org>;\n\tWed,  7 Jul 2021 10:35:24 +0000 (UTC)","from lancelot.ideasonboard.com (localhost [IPv6:::1])\n\tby lancelot.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84FAB68503;\n\tWed,  7 Jul 2021 12:35:23 +0200 (CEST)","from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com\n\t[IPv6:2001:4b98:dc2:55:216:3eff:fef7:d647])\n\tby lancelot.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5D3B60284\n\tfor <libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org>;\n\tWed,  7 Jul 2021 12:35:22 +0200 (CEST)","from [192.168.0.20]\n\t(cpc89244-aztw30-2-0-cust3082.18-1.cable.virginm.net [86.31.172.11])\n\tby perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64F372E4;\n\tWed,  7 Jul 2021 12:35:22 +0200 (CEST)"],"Authentication-Results":"lancelot.ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key;\n\tunprotected) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com\n\theader.b=\"JrGsJ0an\"; dkim-atps=neutral","DKIM-Signature":"v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com;\n\ts=mail; t=1625654122;\n\tbh=UQ3HFiFpeFYhn0WsZIpGyKSoKHrN4Z0Ln/3EbDf+qVQ=;\n\th=To:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:From;\n\tb=JrGsJ0an1TzFxXZ+VAOlK5raziSsco5aQGDH9Ev0NFdrVhgj0AZ1gw17Ee8danyZr\n\tjWerR1+z+LSHxlCT5F6429/ZbCZbNS1tDy4Cq+NG/tD2quySsYwqIymxqmdr/VF0Vn\n\t7EqkOVqymhBUo2Eqg+2D9qpiFqYUPT81x9x+rkI8=","To":"Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>,\n\tlibcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org","References":"<20210706142220.747614-1-umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>","From":"Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>","Message-ID":"<693656ea-7c31-0126-e35b-61137980ea1f@ideasonboard.com>","Date":"Wed, 7 Jul 2021 11:35:19 +0100","User-Agent":"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101\n\tThunderbird/78.11.0","MIME-Version":"1.0","In-Reply-To":"<20210706142220.747614-1-umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>","Content-Type":"text/plain; charset=utf-8","Content-Language":"en-GB","Content-Transfer-Encoding":"8bit","Subject":"Re: [libcamera-devel] [RFC PATCH] camera_sensor: Do not always\n\tprioritize aspect-ratios","X-BeenThere":"libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org","X-Mailman-Version":"2.1.29","Precedence":"list","List-Id":"<libcamera-devel.lists.libcamera.org>","List-Unsubscribe":"<https://lists.libcamera.org/options/libcamera-devel>,\n\t<mailto:libcamera-devel-request@lists.libcamera.org?subject=unsubscribe>","List-Archive":"<https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/>","List-Post":"<mailto:libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org>","List-Help":"<mailto:libcamera-devel-request@lists.libcamera.org?subject=help>","List-Subscribe":"<https://lists.libcamera.org/listinfo/libcamera-devel>,\n\t<mailto:libcamera-devel-request@lists.libcamera.org?subject=subscribe>","Errors-To":"libcamera-devel-bounces@lists.libcamera.org","Sender":"\"libcamera-devel\" <libcamera-devel-bounces@lists.libcamera.org>"}},{"id":18010,"web_url":"https://patchwork.libcamera.org/comment/18010/","msgid":"<7b513215-e306-333f-a526-6948c84ed246@ideasonboard.com>","date":"2021-07-07T10:57:52","subject":"Re: [libcamera-devel] [RFC PATCH] camera_sensor: Do not always\n\tprioritize aspect-ratios","submitter":{"id":86,"url":"https://patchwork.libcamera.org/api/people/86/","name":"Umang Jain","email":"umang.jain@ideasonboard.com"},"content":"Hi Kieran,\n\nOn 7/7/21 4:05 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote:\n> Hi Umang,\n>\n> On 06/07/2021 15:22, Umang Jain wrote:\n>> In some cases, the maximum sensor resolution will provide the best\n>> aspect-ratio for a requested stream size. It may also happen that,\n>> the difference between max sensor resolution's aspect-ratio vs a lower\n>> sensor resolution aspect-ratio is very marginal(for e.g. <1%).\n>> In such cases, we should actually lean towards the lower sensor\n>> resolution.\n>>\n>> One of such cases is observed on nautilus, where all requested stream\n> s/nautilus/$SENSOR_NAME/ (presumably IMX258\n>\n>> sizes seems to map to 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3. Even though, the aspect\n>> ratios for lower sensor resolution aren't that far from 4208x3118.\n>> For a stream size request of 1080p:\n>>   - 1080p     = 1.777777778 (requested)\n>>\n>>   - 4208x3118 = 1.349583066 (originally selected)\n>>   - 2104x1560 = 1.348717949\n>>   - 1048x780  = 1.343589744\n>>\n>> This patch introduces some flexibility on part of sensor resolution\n>> selection procedure. It attempts to provide a sensor resolution,\n>> closest to the requested stream size, whilst keeping best aspect-ratio.\n> /stream size/area/ ?\n>\n>\n>> Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>\n>>\n>> ---\n>> - This patch has been written with \"[PATCH] camera_sensor: Remove\n>>    redundant aspect-ratio check\" applied.\n>>\n>> - There is also known issue/handle on why IPU3 currently selects max\n>>    sensor resolution config possible, we will use \"raw\" to see this patch\n>>    in action.\n>>\n>> - Findings via cam:\n>>\n>> (master)\n>>\n>> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=640,height=320,role=raw\n>> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n>> [10:12:57.975110123] [550]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> [10:12:57.975199686] [550]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> Camera configuration adjusted\n>>\n>> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=1280,height=720,role=raw\n>> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n>> [10:14:23.492963456] [651]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> [10:14:23.493028736] [651]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> Camera configuration adjusted\n>>\n>> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=1920,height=1080,role=raw\n>> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n>> [10:14:34.020592838] [660]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> [10:14:34.020636493] [660]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> Camera configuration adjusted\n>>\n>> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=3840,height=2160,role=raw\n>> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n>> [10:15:20.530557765] [727]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> [10:15:20.530625404] [727]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> Camera configuration adjusted\n>>\n>> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=4200,height=3000,role=raw\n>> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n>> [10:15:33.027468976] [737]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> [10:15:33.027558684] [737]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> Camera configuration adjusted\n>>\n>>\n>> (With this Patch)\n>>\n>> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=640,height=320,role=raw\n>> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n>> [10:19:04.270812870] [1457]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> [10:19:04.270859868] [1457]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 1048x780-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> Camera configuration adjusted\n>>\n>> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=1280,height=720,role=raw\n>> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n>> [10:19:15.515222045] [1465]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> [10:19:15.515265834] [1465]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 2104x1560-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> Camera configuration adjusted\n>>\n>> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=1920,height=1080,role=raw\n>> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n>> [10:19:23.333048232] [1471]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> [10:19:23.333101431] [1471]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 2104x1560-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> Camera configuration adjusted\n>>\n>> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=3840,height=2160,role=raw\n>> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n>> [10:19:29.774700339] [1480]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> [10:19:29.774800035] [1480]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> Camera configuration adjusted\n>>\n>> ($)  cam -c1 -swidth=4200,height=3000,role=raw\n>> Using camera \\_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAM0\n>> [10:19:59.786068223] [1541]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> [10:19:59.786176204] [1541]  INFO IPU3 ipu3.cpp:277 CIO2 configuration: 4208x3118-SGRBG10_IPU3\n>> Camera configuration adjusted\n>\n> Those findings looks quite encouraging indeed, and shows the requirement.\n>\n>\n>> ---\n>>   src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp | 9 ++++++++-\n>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)\n>>\n>> diff --git a/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp b/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp\n>> index 1bf42acf..fb24480b 100644\n>> --- a/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp\n>> +++ b/src/libcamera/camera_sensor.cpp\n>> @@ -569,7 +569,14 @@ V4L2SubdeviceFormat CameraSensor::getFormat(const std::vector<unsigned int> &mbu\n>>   \t\t\tunsigned int area = sz.width * sz.height;\n>>   \t\t\tunsigned int areaDiff = area - desiredArea;\n>>   \n>> -\t\t\tif (ratioDiff > bestRatio)\n>> +\t\t\t/*\n>> +\t\t\t * Check if we have a better aspect ratio match than\n>> +\t\t\t * whatever we have seen before. ~1% change is acceptable\n>> +\t\t\t * if it leads to a selection of lower resolution below.\n>> +\t\t\t */\n>> +\t\t\tif (bestRatio == FLT_MAX)\n>> +\t\t\t\tbestRatio = ratioDiff;\n>> +\t\t\telse if (fabsf(ratioDiff - bestRatio) > 0.01)\n>>   \t\t\t\tcontinue;\n>>   \n> I'm a little curious to be sure of the effects between this patch and\n> the preceding one.\n>\n> Have you run the checks above with only the previous patch?\n>\n> I.e. - could the lower resolutions that get picked be due to the change\n> that you no longer take a preference on aspect ratio (even ignoring the\n> 0.01) when the previous patch is applied?\n\nFor context: the loop starts with the highest-to-lowest \nsensor-resolution in the size-range possible.\n\nWith only the previous patch applied, there is no change w.r.t lower \nsensor resolution being selected (I checked). This is because 4208x3118 \nprovides the best(or closest match) aspect-ratio than the others, even \nlower resolutions are not much further away (check the commit message of \nthis patch for values).\n\nHence, it will satisfy the condition in\n\n\tif (ratioDiff > bestRatio)\n\t\tcontinue;\n\nfrom the start, and won't bother to look at areaDiff comparison below.\n\nDoes this address your curiosity?\n\n\n>\n>>   \t\t\tif (areaDiff < bestArea) {\n>>","headers":{"Return-Path":"<libcamera-devel-bounces@lists.libcamera.org>","X-Original-To":"parsemail@patchwork.libcamera.org","Delivered-To":"parsemail@patchwork.libcamera.org","Received":["from lancelot.ideasonboard.com (lancelot.ideasonboard.com\n\t[92.243.16.209])\n\tby patchwork.libcamera.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D37B3BD794\n\tfor <parsemail@patchwork.libcamera.org>;\n\tWed,  7 Jul 2021 10:58:00 +0000 (UTC)","from lancelot.ideasonboard.com (localhost [IPv6:::1])\n\tby lancelot.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B2168503;\n\tWed,  7 Jul 2021 12:58:00 +0200 (CEST)","from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com\n\t[213.167.242.64])\n\tby lancelot.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52FC560284\n\tfor <libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org>;\n\tWed,  7 Jul 2021 12:57:58 +0200 (CEST)","from [192.168.0.107] (unknown [103.251.226.59])\n\tby perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B25A2E4;\n\tWed,  7 Jul 2021 12:57:57 +0200 (CEST)"],"Authentication-Results":"lancelot.ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key;\n\tunprotected) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com\n\theader.b=\"Eru8/hM6\"; dkim-atps=neutral","DKIM-Signature":"v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com;\n\ts=mail; t=1625655478;\n\tbh=8o6A5oPCpYbSaf95FcgUEkJav/RR7KT+OhVisWQv9Jw=;\n\th=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From;\n\tb=Eru8/hM6sMY8BMj/b+IOswAjC12el/QBWZtl7GBU6Dy6AC1ozjMoLqEznmUlOUKTh\n\tsjrJZ0WqIMRQgIas547MHLSlUcY70ESDMXkyrTpBoOnaJOg+VRZsYxehSFUFKrCdq8\n\tVITDfObU9qg718WsdJdjAF3tO5KPWtm3Z34O7jGc=","To":"Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>,\n\tlibcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org","References":"<20210706142220.747614-1-umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>\n\t<693656ea-7c31-0126-e35b-61137980ea1f@ideasonboard.com>","From":"Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>","Message-ID":"<7b513215-e306-333f-a526-6948c84ed246@ideasonboard.com>","Date":"Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:27:52 +0530","User-Agent":"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101\n\tThunderbird/78.10.2","MIME-Version":"1.0","In-Reply-To":"<693656ea-7c31-0126-e35b-61137980ea1f@ideasonboard.com>","Content-Type":"text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed","Content-Transfer-Encoding":"7bit","Content-Language":"en-US","Subject":"Re: [libcamera-devel] [RFC PATCH] camera_sensor: Do not always\n\tprioritize aspect-ratios","X-BeenThere":"libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org","X-Mailman-Version":"2.1.29","Precedence":"list","List-Id":"<libcamera-devel.lists.libcamera.org>","List-Unsubscribe":"<https://lists.libcamera.org/options/libcamera-devel>,\n\t<mailto:libcamera-devel-request@lists.libcamera.org?subject=unsubscribe>","List-Archive":"<https://lists.libcamera.org/pipermail/libcamera-devel/>","List-Post":"<mailto:libcamera-devel@lists.libcamera.org>","List-Help":"<mailto:libcamera-devel-request@lists.libcamera.org?subject=help>","List-Subscribe":"<https://lists.libcamera.org/listinfo/libcamera-devel>,\n\t<mailto:libcamera-devel-request@lists.libcamera.org?subject=subscribe>","Errors-To":"libcamera-devel-bounces@lists.libcamera.org","Sender":"\"libcamera-devel\" <libcamera-devel-bounces@lists.libcamera.org>"}}]