On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 16:38:19 Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/26/2011 04:19 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 15:51:58 Hans de Goede wrote:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> An open question is whether writing to an inactive and volatile control
> >>> should return
> >>> an error or not.
> >>
> >> I would prefer an error return.
> >
> > I am worried about backwards compatibility, though. Right now inactive
> > controls
> > can be written safely. Suddenly you add the volatile flag and doing the
> > same thing
> > causes an error.
> >
> > Also, a program that saves control values will have to skip any control
> > that:
> >
> > 1) Is read or write only
> > 2) Is inactive and volatile
> >
> > The first is obvious, but the second not so much.
> >
> > Another reason for not returning an error is that it makes v4l2-ctrls.c
> > more complex: if
> > autogain is on and I call VIDIOC_S_EXT_CTRLS to set autogain to off and
> > gain to a new
> > manual value, then it is quite difficult to detect that in this case
> > setting gain is OK
> > (since autogain is turned off at the same time).
> >
> > The more I think about it, the more I think this should just be allowed.
> > The value
> > disappears into a black hole, but at least it won't break any apps.
>
> Ok disappear into a black hole it is :)
Good. Then I'll try to work on this this week.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
