On 1/11/19 9:13 PM, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > Le vendredi 11 janvier 2019 à 12:37 +0100, Hans Verkuil a écrit : >> v4l2_compliance gave a warning for the S_PARM test for output streams: >> >> warn: v4l2-test-formats.cpp(1235): S_PARM is supported for buftype 2, but not for ENUM_FRAMEINTERVALS >> >> The reason is that vivid mapped s_parm for output streams to g_parm. But if >> S_PARM doesn't actually change anything, then it shouldn't be enabled at all. > > Though now, a vivid output reflect even less an output HW, for which I > would expect S_PARM to be used to configure the HW transmission clock. That's done via VIDIOC_S_STD or VIDIOC_S_DV_TIMINGS, not via VIDIOC_S_PARM. S_PARM for an output really makes no sense. At least, I can't think of any. Regards, Hans > >> >> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-core.c b/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-core.c >> index c931f007e5b0..7da5720b47a2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-core.c >> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/vivid/vivid-core.c >> @@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ static int vidioc_s_parm(struct file *file, void *fh, >> >> if (vdev->vfl_dir == VFL_DIR_RX) >> return vivid_vid_cap_s_parm(file, fh, parm); >> - return vivid_vid_out_g_parm(file, fh, parm); >> + return -ENOTTY; >> } >> >> static int vidioc_log_status(struct file *file, void *fh) >
