On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Hans Verkuil wrote: [...] > > Perhaps we should just not do this in sysfs at all but in debugfs? We have a > lot more freedom there. No requirement of one-value-per-file, and if we need > to we can change things in the future. It would actually be easier to issue > ioctl commands to a driver from debugfs since we have a proper struct file > there. > > It could be implemented as a separate module that can be loaded if debugfs is > enabled and suddenly you have all this extra debug functionality. > > I admit, I would really enjoy writing something like this. I just don't want > to do this in sysfs as that makes it too 'official' so to speak. In other words, > mainline applications should not use sysfs, but home-grown scripts are free to > use it as far as I am concerned. > > How much of a problem would that be for you, Mike? On the one hand users have > to mount debugfs, but on the other hand it will be consistent for all drivers > that use the control framework. And you should be able to ditch a substantial > amount of code :-) Adding a debugfs interface that can be used by all V4L drivers is obviously a concept I would not have any problem with. However that does not necessarily mean that I would agree with eventual removal of the pvrusb2 driver's existing sysfs interface. That would depend on whether or not doing such a thing loses functionality and what the driver's user community would think about it. -Mike -- Mike Isely isely @ isely (dot) net PGP: 03 54 43 4D 75 E5 CC 92 71 16 01 E2 B5 F5 C1 E8 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
