On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > would do the trick. Yet, the application is broken, as it is considering a positive > return as an error. A positive code should never be considered as an error. So, we > need to fix v4l2-ctl as well (ok, returning 1 is wrong as well, as this is a non-v4l2 > compliance in this case). A strict interpretation of the spec would read that returning zero is success, -1 is an well-formed error condition, and *ANYTHING* else is a violation of the spec and an application used for testing compliance should complain very loudly (which is exactly what it does). In effect, the only patch I would consider valid for v4l2-ctl would be one that makes the error even more LOUD than it already is. > We might add a new handler at subdev, but, as Laurent is reworking > it, the above trick would be an acceptable workaround. Great. I'll submit a patch to this effect, which would be applicable until we have a final solution in place. Thanks, Devin -- Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs http://www.kernellabs.com -- 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
