Le dimanche 23 septembre 2012 14:43:42, Sakari Ailus a écrit : > > I think I like this idea best, it's relatively simple (even with adding > > support for reporting flags in VIDIOC_QUERYBUF) for the purpose. > > > > If we ever need the clock selection API I would vote for an IOCTL. > > The controls API is a bad choice for something such fundamental as > > type of clock for buffer timestamping IMHO. Let's stop making the > > controls API a dumping ground for almost everything in V4L2! ;) > > Why would the control API be worse than an IOCTL for choosing the type of > the timestamp? The control API after all has functionality for exactly for > this: this is an obvious menu control. > > What comes to the nature of things that can be configured using controls > and what can be done using IOCTLs I see no difference. It's just a > mechanism. That's what traditional Unix APIs do in general: provide > mechanism, not a policy.
Seriously? Timestamp is _not_ a controllable hardware feature like brightness or flash. Controls are meant to build user interface controls for interaction with the user. Timestamp is _not_ something the user should control directly. The application should figure out what it gets and what it needs. Or why do you use STREAMON/STREAMOFF instead of a STREAM boolean control, eh? -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/ -- 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
