Hi Hans, Thank you for the patch. On Friday, 29 June 2018 14:43:30 EEST Hans Verkuil wrote: > From: Hans Verkuil <hansverk@xxxxxxxxx> > > Make it clearer that the index starts at 0, and that it won't change > since future new pads will be added at the end. > > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hansverk@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/media/uapi/mediactl/media-ioc-enum-links.rst | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/mediactl/media-ioc-enum-links.rst > b/Documentation/media/uapi/mediactl/media-ioc-enum-links.rst index > 17abdeed1a9c..4cceeb8a6f73 100644 > --- a/Documentation/media/uapi/mediactl/media-ioc-enum-links.rst > +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/mediactl/media-ioc-enum-links.rst > @@ -92,7 +92,9 @@ returned during the enumeration process. > > * - __u16 > - ``index`` > - - 0-based pad index. > + - Pad index, starts at 0. Pad indices are stable. If new pads are > added > + for an entity in the future, then those will be added at the end of the > + entity's pad array. Is that true strictly speaking ? We do mandate pad indices to be stable, but couldn't new pads still be inserted in the array ? The array wouldn't be sorted by pad index anymore, but I don't think we require that. If we want to I don't have any objection, but it should then be documented. > * - __u32 > - ``flags`` -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
