That should have been just [PATCH] in the subject line :-) On 16/07/2024 14:08, Hans Verkuil wrote: > The documentation for V4L2_BUF_CAP_SUPPORTS_MAX_NUM_BUFFERS and > V4L2_BUF_CAP_SUPPORTS_REMOVE_BUFS was missing. Add this. > > Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/userspace-api/media/v4l/vidioc-reqbufs.rst | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/media/v4l/vidioc-reqbufs.rst b/Documentation/userspace-api/media/v4l/vidioc-reqbufs.rst > index bbc22dd76032..1df3ce1fe93e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/userspace-api/media/v4l/vidioc-reqbufs.rst > +++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/media/v4l/vidioc-reqbufs.rst > @@ -166,6 +166,13 @@ aborting or finishing any DMA in progress, an implicit > :ref:`V4L2_BUF_FLAG_NO_CACHE_INVALIDATE <V4L2-BUF-FLAG-NO-CACHE-INVALIDATE>`, > :ref:`V4L2_BUF_FLAG_NO_CACHE_CLEAN <V4L2-BUF-FLAG-NO-CACHE-CLEAN>` and > :ref:`V4L2_MEMORY_FLAG_NON_COHERENT <V4L2-MEMORY-FLAG-NON-COHERENT>`. > + * - ``V4L2_BUF_CAP_SUPPORTS_MAX_NUM_BUFFERS`` > + - 0x00000080 > + - If set, then the ``max_num_buffers`` field in ``struct v4l2_create_buffers`` > + is valid. > + * - ``V4L2_BUF_CAP_SUPPORTS_REMOVE_BUFS`` > + - 0x00000100 > + - If set, then ``VIDIOC_REMOVE_BUFS`` is supported. > > .. raw:: latex >
