On Monday 27 June 2011, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > The point is that the spec can easily be improved to make such 'NOP' operations > > explicit, or to require that if a capability is present, then the corresponding > > ioctl(s) must also be present. Things like that are easy to verify as well with > > v4l2-compliance. > > We currently have more than 64 ioctl's. Adding a capability bit for each doesn't > seem the right thing to do. Ok, some could be grouped, but, even so, there are > drivers that implement the VIDIOC_G, but doesn't implement the corresponding VIDIO_S. > So, I think we don't have enough available bits for doing that. It shouldn't be too hard to do an ioctl command that returns a le_bitmask with the ioctl command number as an index (0 to 91, currently), and the bit set for each command that has the corresponding v4l2_ioctl_ops member filled for the device. That would be an obvious way to query the operations, but I don't know if it's useful. Arnd -- 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
