Hi Sakari, On 01/24/2014 12:28 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:45:58PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: >> + union { >> + __u64 val; >> + __u32 reserved[4]; >> + } step; > > While I do not question that step is obviously always a positive value (or > zero), using a different type from the value (and min and max) does add > slight complications every time it is being used. I don't think there's a > use case for using values over 2^62 for step either. What sort of complications? The reason I changed it is to avoid having to check for step < 0. It also makes it clear that it has to be positive. > > Speaking of which --- do you think we should continue to have step in the > interface? This has been proven to be slightly painful when the step is not > an integer. Using a step of one in that case has been the only feasible > solution. Step could be naturally be used as a hint but enforcing it often > forces setting it to one. Step is used quite often, so we can't remove it. If the step for a particular control isn't fixed over the range of possible values (at least, I think that is what you mean), then I don't see any solution that isn't painful. Not to mention that GUIs will have a hard time. Suggestions are welcome, though. Regards, Hans -- 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