On 27/08/2024 11:05, Dikshita Agarwal via B4 Relay wrote:
From: Vedang Nagar <quic_vnagar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Implement query_cap, query_ctrl and query_menu ioctls in the
driver with necessary hooks.
Signed-off-by: Vedang Nagar <quic_vnagar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_vidc.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 89 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_vidc.c b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_vidc.c
index 7d5da30cb1d1..1dd612b7cec5 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_vidc.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/iris/iris_vidc.c
@@ -362,6 +362,92 @@ static int iris_enum_framesizes(struct file *filp, void *fh,
return ret;
}
+static int iris_querycap(struct file *filp, void *fh, struct v4l2_capability *cap)
+{
+ struct iris_inst *inst;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ inst = iris_get_inst(filp, fh);
+ if (!inst)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ mutex_lock(&inst->lock);
+ strscpy(cap->driver, IRIS_DRV_NAME, sizeof(cap->driver));
+ strscpy(cap->bus_info, IRIS_BUS_NAME, sizeof(cap->bus_info));
+ memset(cap->reserved, 0, sizeof(cap->reserved));
+ strscpy(cap->card, "iris_decoder", sizeof(cap->card));
+ mutex_unlock(&inst->lock);
Locking is a good thing but, this seems very rote.
What's being protected here ?
Please take a critical - no pun intended - look at your locking strategy
here.
I mentioned previously taking a core lock and releasing it with a level
of granularity that didn't make a ton of sense to me, here's another
example of locking for locking's sake.
Please go through your code, look at your locks with a critical eye and
say "what's this for, why are doing this, what is the lock supposed to
guarantee here".
I appreciate that can be difficult with a progressive patchset so
recommend jumping in at the end and doing that analysis.
---
bod
