Hi Gustavo, Alexandre, As you may have seen I have been extending the v4l2-compliance utility with tests for v4l-subdevX and mediaX devices. In the process of doing that I promptly found a bunch of bugs. Mostly little things that are easy to fix, but much harder to find without proper tests.
You are both working on new API additions and I want to give a heads-up that I want to have patches for v4l2-compliance that test the new additions to a reasonable extent. I say 'reasonable' because I suspect that e.g. in-fence support might be hard to test. But out-fences can definitely be tested and for in-fences you can at minimum test what happens when you give it an invalid file descriptor. For the request API is it obviously too early to start writing tests, but as the API crystallizes you may consider starting to work on it. I've decided to be more strict about this based on my experiences. I'm more than happy to assist and give advice, especially since this is a bit of a late notice, particularly for Gustavo. But every time we skip this step it bites us in the ass later on. It is also highly recommended to add fence/request support to the vivid and vim2m drivers. It makes it much easier to find regressions in the API due to future changes since you don't need 'real' hardware for these drivers. Again my apologies for the late notice, but it is better to make these tests now while you are working on the new feature, rather than doing it much later and finding all sorts of gremlins in the API. Regards, Hans