Re: Proposal for channel coordination between multiple v4l2 users

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Tom Zoerner <tomzo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Any pro/cons to event handling in general?
> 
> (I've added only what I consider useful for VBI apps so far, maybe
> there's other significant global parameters for other capture types,
> e.g. audio mute?)

tuning changes (i.e. S_FREQUENCY triggers that one)?  control changes
(S_CTRL)?  STREAMON/OFF?  Control changes wouldn't be that simple
through ...

> BTW: any suggestions regarding handling of radio, in particular
> the mode change upon open?  (Possibly reject the device open with
> EBUSY when a recording is active or delay radio mode change until
> the first frequency is tuned?)

-EBUSY when recording priority is active sounds sane to me.

> > Anyway, bus_info should do the trick.
> 
> Could we make this info mandatory for all v4l2 drivers then?  If the
> driver doesn't have anything like a bus_info it could still provide an
> instance number instead.  In combination with the driver name the info
> should be unique.

I think it shouldn't be a problem for the driver to provide bus_info.
Every modern bus has some way to identify a device, so
"bustype:identity" should be unique.  Even for prehistoric ISA you can
build something unique using the io port address of the device,
i.e. "ISA:0x320" for example.

Making that mandatory is fine with me.

  Gerd

-- 
sigfault




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DVB]     [Video Disk Recorder]     [Asterisk]     [Photo]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Util Linux NG]     [Xfree86]     [Free Photo Albums]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Women]     [ALSA Users]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux USB]

Powered by Linux