Hi Gustavo, a very small comment below On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 02:49:20PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF and VIDIOC_QUERY_BUF about it > > v6: - Close some gaps in the docs (Hans) > > v5: > - Remove V4L2_CAP_ORDERED > - Add doc about V4L2_FMT_FLAG_UNORDERED > > v4: > - Document ordering behavior for in-fences > - Document V4L2_CAP_ORDERED capability > - Remove doc about OUT_FENCE event > - Document immediate return of out-fence in QBUF > > v3: > - make the out_fence refer to the current buffer (Hans) > - Note what happens when the IN_FENCE is not set (Hans) > > v2: > - mention that fences are files (Hans) > - rework for the new API > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++- > Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-querybuf.rst | 12 ++++-- > 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > [snip] > +Note the the same `fence_fd` field is used for both sending the in-fence as > +input argument to receive the out-fence as a return argument. A buffer can > +have both in-fence ond out-fence. I feel like an "and" is missing here... the same `fence_fd` field is used for both sending the in-fence as input argument to receive the out-fence as a return argument the same `fence_fd` field is used for both sending the in-fence as input argument *and* to receive the out-fence as a return argument I'm not a native speaker so I might be wrong though. Thanks j
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
