On 19/03/2020 02:38, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 04:37:44AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hi Niklas,
>>
>> Thank you for the patch.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:30:47PM +0100, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
>>> Add a flags field to the media_device_info structure by taking one
>>> of the reserved u32 fields. The use-case is to have a way to
>>> (optionally) report to user-space if the media graph is complete or not.
>>>
>>> Also define two flags to carry information about if the graph is
>>> complete or not. If neither of the two flags are set the
>>> media device does not support reporting its graph status. The other bits
>>> in the flags field are unused for now, but could be claimed to carry
>>> other type of information in the future.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> include/uapi/linux/media.h | 9 ++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/media.h b/include/uapi/linux/media.h
>>> index 383ac7b7d8f07eca..9b37ed8b41d0d866 100644
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/media.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/media.h
>>> @@ -34,9 +34,16 @@ struct media_device_info {
>>> __u32 media_version;
>>> __u32 hw_revision;
>>> __u32 driver_version;
>>> - __u32 reserved[31];
>>> + __u32 flags;
>>> + __u32 reserved[30];
>>
>> I think this information should be added to media_v2_topology, not
>> media_device_info, otherwise you'll have a race condition between
>> retrieving the media device information and the topology.
>> media_device_info is really supposed to be static.
>
> Also, documentation is needed.
>
>>> };
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Graph flags
>>> + */
>>> +#define MEDIA_INFO_FLAG_INCOMPLETE (1 << 0)
>>> +#define MEDIA_INFO_FLAG_COMPLETE (1 << 1)
Isn't this boolean, and therefore wouldn't a single flag be sufficient?
or do you expect there to be some in-between state where neither of
these flags would be set.
--
Kieran
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * Base number ranges for entity functions
>>> *
>
