Hi Sylwester, On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > Hi Guennadi, > > On 09/12/2013 09:13 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > So, I think, our V4L2 clock enable / disable calls should be balanced, and > > to enforce that a warning is helpful. Other opinions? > > I'd assume we should enforce those calls balanced, but I might not be > well aware of consequences for the all existing drivers. AFAIR all drivers > used in embedded systems follow the convention where default power state > is off and the s_power() calls are balanced. > > I never ventured much into drivers that originally used tuner.s_standby() > before it got renamed to core.s_power(). As Mauro indicated tuner devices > assume default device power ON state, but additional s_power(1) call should > not break things as Frank pointed out. > > I'd say let's make s_power(1) calls balanced, keep the warning and revisit > drivers one by one as they get support for explicit clock control added. Thanks for your feedback. Any more opinions? Thanks Guennadi > -- > Regards, > Sylwester --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- 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
