On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:07:53 +0100, Evgeny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Good question ... The only computer I can currently test it on doesn't >> seem to give me the ETIMEDOUT error at all. If you experience ETIMEDOUT, >> what happens if you retry in that case, too? >> >> Other errors that were reported to occur are EOVERFLOW and EPROTO but >> those are pretty rare and therefore more difficult to test. > > > So, my look at this problem. Sometimes, when trying to change controls, > camera reports -32 (-EPIPE) error. -110 (-ETIMEDOUT) error occurs after > some > numbers of -EPIPE, and leaves the camera in locked state. Martin, please > tell me, what do you think about applying your patch and so called > "reset patch" simultaneously? That sounds like an idea. Before you do that, however, can you confirm that retrying control requests after -ETIMEDOUT does _not_ succeed? > E.g. try to resubmit command to camera if it failed with -32 and reset > camera if it failed with -110. I can try to create combined patch and it > can be less ugly solution that "reset patch", but more stable > than simple resubmitting of a control message. Depending on the outcome of the "retry after ETIMEDOUT" experiment, it might be a good idea to first retry even in the case of -ETIMEDOUT and, if that doesn't help, reset the camera. If you want to write such a patch, please go ahead, you know where to find testers. ;-) Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Linux-uvc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/linux-uvc-devel
