Re: [PATCH] Add support for OmniVision OV534 based USB cameras. - Jean-Francois Moine

From: Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@free.fr>
To: Antonio Ospite <ospite@studenti.unina.it>
Cc: video4linux-list@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for OmniVision OV534 based USB cameras.
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:55:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1226660130.1737.22.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081113233554.65c5a5f4.ospite@studenti.unina.it>

On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 23:35 +0100, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> > I attached the patch of the main driver.
> 
> Many thanks Jean-Francois, any ETA of this change in mainline?

Sorry, what do you mean by ETA? I uploaded the patch to my repository
with you as the author.

	[snip]
> > +	/* resubmit the URB */
> > +	if (gspca_dev->cam.bulk_nurbs != 0) {
> 
> Just to be sure: this check is still needed because bulk_irq() can be
> still called even for drivers like finepix, right?

Yes, the subdriver may use the bulk_irq or have an other function. This
is the case for finepix which may receive normal(!) URB errors.

> I am not sure I've fully understood the code path here, maybe I should
> look better at what the finepix driver does, sorry, does it still uses
> the urb initialized in create_urbs(), even if it drives the submission
> manually?

Yes. The URB is created and destroyed by the main driver. Only the
submission and optionally the IRQ treatment are done by the subdriver.

	[snip]
> > +		if (gspca_dev->cam.bulk_nurbs != 0)
> > +			nurbs = gspca_dev->cam.bulk_nurbs;
> 
> should we set this to min(gspca_dev->cam.bulk_nurbs, MAX_NURBS) ?

Yes, we should, but, if a greater value is set, the subdriver will crash
at the first development test...

Regards.

-- 
Ken ar c'hentañ |             ** Breizh ha Linux atav! **
Jef             |               http://moinejf.free.fr/

--
video4linux-list mailing list
Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list