On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:15:03AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Fri, 6 Oct 2017 14:51:06 +0300 > Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> escreveu: > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 01:22:29PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > + V4L2 device node > > > > + A device node that is associated to a V4L2 main driver, > > > > + as specified in :ref:`v4l2_device_naming`. > > > > I think we need to name the interface, not so much their instances. > > > > How about adding: > > > > V4L2 > > Video4Linux 2 interface. The interface implemented by **V4L2 device > > nodes**. > > > > and: > > > > V4L2 device node > > A device node implementing the **V4L2** interface. > > Not sure if I answered it already. subdev API is part of V4L2. > So, a change like that would cause more harm than good ;-) Hmm. There seems to be a gap here. It'd be much easier to maintain consistency in naming and definitions if V4L2 sub-device nodes were also documented to be V4L2 device nodes, just as any other device nodes exposed by drivers through the V4L2 framework. > > The definition should let it clear that only the devnodes > implemented by the V4L2 main driver are considered as > V4L2 device nodes. Why? I don't think we should make assumptions on which driver exposes a device node; this is not visible to the user space after all. -- Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx
