On Tuesday 15 November 2011 21:18:12 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hello Hans,
>
> On 11/07/2011 11:37 AM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > From: Hans Verkuil<hans.verk...@cisco.com>
> >
> > If V4L2_CAP_DEVICE_CAPS is set, then the new device_caps field is filled
> > with the capabilities of the opened device node.
> >
> > The capabilities field traditionally contains the capabilities of the
> > whole device. E.g., if you open video0, then if it contains VBI caps
> > then that means that there is a corresponding vbi node as well. And the
> > capabilities field of both the video and vbi node should contain
> > identical caps.
> >
> > However, it would be very useful to also have a capabilities field that
> > contains just the caps for the currently open device, hence the new CAP
> > bit and field.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil<hans.verk...@cisco.com>
> > ---
> >
> > include/linux/videodev2.h | 7 +++++--
> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/videodev2.h b/include/linux/videodev2.h
> > index 4b752d5..2b6338b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/videodev2.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/videodev2.h
> > @@ -243,8 +243,9 @@ struct v4l2_capability {
> >
> > __u8 card[32]; /* i.e. "Hauppauge WinTV" */
> > __u8 bus_info[32]; /* "PCI:" + pci_name(pci_dev) */
> > __u32 version; /* should use KERNEL_VERSION() */
> >
> > - __u32 capabilities; /* Device capabilities */
> > - __u32 reserved[4];
> > + __u32 capabilities; /* Global device capabilities */
> > + __u32 device_caps; /* Device node capabilities */
>
> How about changing this to
>
> __u32 devnode_caps; /* Device node capabilities */
>
> > + __u32 reserved[3];
> >
> > };
> >
> > /* Values for 'capabilities' field */
> >
> > @@ -274,6 +275,8 @@ struct v4l2_capability {
> >
> > #define V4L2_CAP_ASYNCIO 0x02000000 /* async I/O */
> > #define V4L2_CAP_STREAMING 0x04000000 /* streaming I/O
> > ioctls */
> >
> > +#define V4L2_CAP_DEVICE_CAPS 0x80000000 /* sets device
> > capabilities field */
>
> ..and
>
> #define V4L2_CAP_DEVNODE_CAPS 0x80000000 /* sets device node
> capabilities field */
>
> ?
>
> 'device' might suggest a whole physical device/system at first sight.
> Maybe devnode_caps is not be the best name but it seems more explicit and
> less confusing :)
>
> It's just my personal opinion though.
I also have a preference for devnode, but it is my understanding that Mauro
prefers 'device' over 'devnode'. Is that correct, Mauro?
I am OK with either.
Regards,
Hans
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sylwester
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
