OK gnezdo with a usability question inline.
Marcus Glocker <mar...@nazgul.ch> writes:
> martijn@ has recently reported that in his machine he has two cams
> of which one is doing IR, which isn't really supported by uvideo(4).
> This IR device attaches always first as uvideo0, so he needs to swap
> that regularly with his working cam which by default attaches to uvideo1.
>
> I came up with a new quirk flag to *not* attach certain devices. Tested
> successfully by martijn@, the IR cam attaches to ugen0 and the supported
> cam to uvideo0.
>
> This patch shouldn't affect any supported uvideo(4) devices.
>
> OK?
>
> Index: sys/dev/usb/uvideo.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/usb/uvideo.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.211
> diff -u -p -u -p -r1.211 uvideo.c
> --- sys/dev/usb/uvideo.c 27 Jan 2021 17:28:19 -0000 1.211
> +++ sys/dev/usb/uvideo.c 8 Mar 2021 22:06:51 -0000
> @@ -307,6 +307,7 @@ struct video_hw_if uvideo_hw_if = {
> #define UVIDEO_FLAG_ISIGHT_STREAM_HEADER 0x1
> #define UVIDEO_FLAG_REATTACH 0x2
> #define UVIDEO_FLAG_VENDOR_CLASS 0x4
> +#define UVIDEO_FLAG_NOATTACH 0x8
> struct uvideo_devs {
> struct usb_devno uv_dev;
> char *ucode_name;
> @@ -382,6 +383,12 @@ struct uvideo_devs {
> NULL,
> UVIDEO_FLAG_VENDOR_CLASS
> },
> + { /* Infrared camera not supported */
> + { USB_VENDOR_CHICONY, USB_PRODUCT_CHICONY_IRCAMERA },
> + NULL,
> + NULL,
> + UVIDEO_FLAG_NOATTACH
> + },
> };
> #define uvideo_lookup(v, p) \
> ((struct uvideo_devs *)usb_lookup(uvideo_devs, v, p))
> @@ -480,13 +487,12 @@ uvideo_match(struct device *parent, void
> if (id == NULL)
> return (UMATCH_NONE);
>
> - if (id->bInterfaceClass == UICLASS_VIDEO &&
> - id->bInterfaceSubClass == UISUBCLASS_VIDEOCONTROL)
> - return (UMATCH_VENDOR_PRODUCT_CONF_IFACE);
> -
> - /* quirk devices which we want to attach */
> + /* quirk devices */
> quirk = uvideo_lookup(uaa->vendor, uaa->product);
> if (quirk != NULL) {
> + if (quirk->flags & UVIDEO_FLAG_NOATTACH)
How common is it to explain the system behavior in cases like this?
Would it be less surprising (generate less misc@ traffic) if we printed
a note explaining why the camera was skipped?
Thanks
Greg
