On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Dongsoo, Nathaniel Kim wrote: > Hello Guennadi, > > So let's assume that camera interface device can process > V4L2_CID_SHARPNESS and even external camera device can process that, > then according to your patch both of camera interface and external > camera device can be issued to process V4L2_CID_SHARPNESS which I > guess will make image sharpened twice. Am I getting the patch right?
Please, do not top-post! I am sorry, is it really so difficult to understand > >> > + ret = ici->ops->set_ctrl(icd, ctrl); > >> > + if (ret != -ENOIOCTLCMD) > >> > + return ret; which means just one thing: the camera host (interface if you like) driver decides, whether it wants client's control to be called, in which case it has to return -ENOIOCTLCMD, or it returns any other code (0 or a negative error code), then the client will not be called. > If I'm getting right, it might be better to give user make a choice > through platform data or some sort of variable which can make a choice > between camera interface and camera device to process the CID. It > could be just in aspect of manufacturer mind, we do love to make a > choice between same features in different devices in easy way. So > never mind if my idea is not helpful making your driver elegant :-) So far it seems too much to me. Let's wait until we get a case where it really makes sense for platform code to decide who processes certain controls. I think giving the host driver the power to decide should be ok for now. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- 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
