Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] media/v4l2-ctrls: Always run s_ctrl on volatile ctrls
From: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado
Date: Mon Feb 23 2015 - 20:05:02 EST
Hello Hans and Laurent
I understand volatile as a control that can change its value by the device. So in that sense I think that my control is volatile and writeable (ack by the user).
The value written by the user is meaning-less in my usercase, but in another s it could be useful.
I am outside the office and with no computer for the next two weeks. If you can wait until then I can implement Hans idea or another one and try it out with my hw.
Thanks for consideing my usercase :)
(Sorry for duplicate, still trying to convince my phone to use plain text)
On 24 February 2015 06:07:49 GMT+07:00, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Monday 23 February 2015 10:06:10 Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> On 02/17/2015 04:08 PM, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
>> > Volatile controls can change their value outside the v4l-ctrl
>> > We should ignore the cached written value of the ctrl when
>> > we should run s_ctrl.
>> I've been thinking some more about this (also due to some comments
>> made on irc), and I think this should be done differently.
>> What you want to do here is to signal that setting this control will
>> some action that needs to happen even if the same value is set twice.
>> That's not really covered by VOLATILE. Interestingly, the WRITE_ONLY
>> to be used for just that purpose, but this happens to be a R/W
>> that can't be used either.
>> What is needed is the following:
>> 1) Add a new flag: V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_ACTION.
>> 2) Any control that sets FLAG_WRITE_ONLY should OR it with
>> keep the current meaning of WRITE_ONLY).
>> 3) Any control with FLAG_ACTION set should return changed == true in
>> 4) Any control with FLAG_VOLATILE set should set ctrl->has_changed to
>> to prevent generating the CH_VALUE control (that's a real bug).
>> Your control will now set FLAG_ACTION and FLAG_VOLATILE and it will
>> right thing.
>I'm not sure about Ricardo's use case, is it the one we've discussed on
>If so, and if I recall correctly, the idea was to perform an action
>parameter, and didn't require volatility.
>> Basically what was missing was a flag to explicitly signal this
>> executes an action' behavior. Trying to shoehorn that into the
>> flag or the write_only flag is just not right. It's a flag in its own
>Just for the sake of exploring all options, what did you think about
>of making button controls accept a value ?
>Your proposal is interesting as well, but I'm not sure about the
>V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_ACTION name. Aren't all controls supposed to have an
>some sort ? That's nitpicking of course.
>Also, should the action flag be automatically set for button controls ?
>controls would in a way become type-less controls with the action flag
>that's interesting. I suppose type-less controls without the action
>> > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > v4: Hans Verkuil:
>> > explicity set has_changed to false. and add comment
>> > drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c | 11 +++++++++++
>> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/