On 24/04/2024 17:22, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Set len_routes of struct v4l2_subdev_routing. ENOSPC error code is no
> longer used, i.e. having room for fewer routes than exist in the
> configuration is not considered an error anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp | 12 +++++++-----
> utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp | 19 +++++++++++--------
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp
> index fd7e7d76e214..144f961842c6 100644
> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp
> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp
> @@ -1272,15 +1272,17 @@ void testNode(struct node &node, struct node &node_m2m_cap, struct node &expbuf_
>
> for (unsigned which = V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_TRY;
> which <= V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_ACTIVE; which++) {
> + struct v4l2_subdev_routing &routing = sd_routing[which];
>
> - sd_routing[which].which = which;
> - sd_routing[which].routes = (uintptr_t)sd_routes[which];
> - sd_routing[which].num_routes = NUM_ROUTES_MAX;
> + routing.which = which;
> + routing.routes = (uintptr_t)sd_routes[which];
> + routing.len_routes = NUM_ROUTES_MAX;
> + routing.num_routes = 0;
>
> - ret = doioctl(&node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING, &sd_routing[which]);
> + ret = doioctl(&node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING, &routing);
> if (ret) {
> fail("VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING: failed to get routing\n");
> - sd_routing[which].num_routes = 0;
> + routing.num_routes = 0;
> }
> }
> }
> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp
> index da304a8caa8a..41eaf77112f0 100644
> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp
> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp
> @@ -587,17 +587,15 @@ int testSubDevRouting(struct node *node, unsigned which)
>
> routing.which = which;
> routing.routes = (uintptr_t)&routes;
> + routing.len_routes = 0;
> routing.num_routes = 0;
> memset(routing.reserved, 0xff, sizeof(routing.reserved));
>
> - /*
> - * First test that G_ROUTING either returns success, or ENOSPC and
> - * updates num_routes.
> - */
> + /* First test that G_ROUTING returns success even when len_routes is 0. */
>
> ret = doioctl(node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING, &routing);
> - fail_on_test(ret && ret != ENOSPC);
> - fail_on_test(ret == ENOSPC && routing.num_routes == 0);
> + fail_on_test(ret);
> + fail_on_test(routing.num_routes > NUM_ROUTES_MAX);
> fail_on_test(check_0(routing.reserved, sizeof(routing.reserved)));
>
> if (!routing.num_routes)
> @@ -609,7 +607,8 @@ int testSubDevRouting(struct node *node, unsigned which)
> */
>
> uint32_t num_routes = routing.num_routes;
> - routing.num_routes = num_routes + 1;
> + routing.len_routes = NUM_ROUTES_MAX;
> + routing.num_routes = 0;
> fail_on_test(doioctl(node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING, &routing));
> fail_on_test(routing.num_routes != num_routes);
>
> @@ -633,10 +632,14 @@ int testSubDevRouting(struct node *node, unsigned which)
> }
> }
>
> - /* Set the same routes back, which should always succeed. */
> + /*
> + * Set the same routes back, which should always succeed and report the
> + * same number of routes.
> + */
>
> memset(routing.reserved, 0xff, sizeof(routing.reserved));
> fail_on_test(doioctl(node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_ROUTING, &routing));
> + fail_on_test(routing.num_routes != num_routes);
> fail_on_test(check_0(routing.reserved, sizeof(routing.reserved)));
I think this needs another test: if S_ROUTING is called with num_routes > len_routes,
then EINVAL must be returned. This is an important test to make sure the core handles
this correctly and won't be using more than len_routes routes.
Regards,
Hans
>
> /* Test setting invalid pads */
