On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:20:16 +0900 "DongSoo Kim" <dongsoo.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello everyone. > > I'm facing with some questions about "Can I make it ioctl or CID?" For most cases, creating a control (CID) is better than using another ioctl. > Because if I make it in ioctl It should occupy one of the extra ioctl > number for v4l2, and I'm afraid it deserves that. > > Actually I'm working on strobe flash device (like xenon flash, LED > flash and so on...) for digital camera. > > And in my opinion it looks good in v4l2 than in misc device. (or..is > there some subsystems for strobe light? sorry I can't find it yet) As far as I understand, having this on V4L2 would be better. > As far as I worked on, strobe light seems to be more easy to control > over ioctl than CID. Since we need to check its status (like not > charged, turned off etc..). v4l2 controls can be used also to read. You may even group several different controls into one get or set request. > But here is the thing. > > "Is that really worthy of occupying an ioctl number for v4l2?" > > Can I use extra ioctl numbers as many as I like for v4l2 if It is reasonable? > > Can I have a rule if there is a rule for that? There's no rule, but we generally try to avoid creating newer ioctls. It is not forbidden to create, but we need to take some care with. Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
