Em Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:34:03 +0100
Hans Verkuil <hverk...@xs4all.nl> escreveu:
> From: Hans Verkuil <hans.verk...@cisco.com>
>
> Add a 'bool from_other_dev' argument: set to true if the two
> handlers refer to different devices (e.g. it is true when
> inheriting controls from a subdev into a main v4l2 bridge
> driver).
>
> This will be used later when implementing support for the
> request API since we need to skip such controls.
>
> TODO: check drivers/staging/media/imx/imx-media-fim.c change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verk...@cisco.com>
> ---
> drivers/media/dvb-frontends/rtl2832_sdr.c | 5 +--
> drivers/media/pci/bt8xx/bttv-driver.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/pci/cx23885/cx23885-417.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/pci/cx88/cx88-blackbird.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/pci/cx88/cx88-video.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/pci/saa7134/saa7134-empress.c | 4 +--
> drivers/media/pci/saa7134/saa7134-video.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/platform/exynos4-is/fimc-capture.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/platform/rcar-vin/rcar-v4l2.c | 3 +-
> drivers/media/platform/rcar_drif.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/soc_camera.c | 3 +-
> drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-ctrls.c | 42
> ++++++++++++------------
> drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-417.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/usb/cx231xx/cx231xx-video.c | 4 +--
> drivers/media/usb/msi2500/msi2500.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/usb/tm6000/tm6000-video.c | 2 +-
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c | 11 ++++---
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-device.c | 3 +-
> drivers/staging/media/imx/imx-media-dev.c | 2 +-
> drivers/staging/media/imx/imx-media-fim.c | 2 +-
> include/media/v4l2-ctrls.h | 4 ++-
You forgot to update Documentation/media/kapi/v4l2-controls.rst.
> 21 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/rtl2832_sdr.c
> b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/rtl2832_sdr.c
> index c6e78d870ccd..6064d28224e8 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/rtl2832_sdr.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/rtl2832_sdr.c
> @@ -1394,7 +1394,8 @@ static int rtl2832_sdr_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> case RTL2832_SDR_TUNER_E4000:
> v4l2_ctrl_handler_init(&dev->hdl, 9);
> if (subdev)
> - v4l2_ctrl_add_handler(&dev->hdl, subdev->ctrl_handler,
> NULL);
> + v4l2_ctrl_add_handler(&dev->hdl, subdev->ctrl_handler,
> + NULL, true);
Changing all drivers to tell if a control belongs to a subdev or not
seems weird. I won't doubt that people may get it wrong and fill it
with a wrong value.
IMHO, it would be better, instead, to pass some struct to the function
that would allow the function to check if the device is a subdev
or not.
For example, we could do:
int v4l2_ctrl_subdev_add_handler(struct v4l2_ctrl_handler *hdl,
struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
v4l2_ctrl_filter filter);
That should be used for all subdev controls. Internally, such
function would be using:
sd->control_handler
as the add parameter for v4l2_ctrl_add_handler().
I would also try to do the same for devices: have a
v4l2_ctrl_dev_add_handler() that would take a struct v4l2_dev, and
make v4l2_ctrl_add_handler() a static function inside v4l2-ctrls.c.
This way, we should avoid the risk of wrong usages.
Thanks,
Mauro
