[question] about open/release and vidioc_g_input/vidioc_s_input functions

[question] about open/release and vidioc_g_input/vidioc_s_input functions

[Alexey Klimov]

Hello, all

After last convertion of radio drivers to use v4l2_device we have such
code in many radio drivers:
(it's radio-terratec.c for example)

...
 static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
{
        return 0;
}

static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
{
        return 0;
}
...

and

...
static int vidioc_g_input(struct file *filp, void *priv, unsigned int
*i)
{
        *i = 0;
        return 0;
}

static int vidioc_s_input(struct file *filp, void *priv, unsigned int i)
{
        return i ? -EINVAL : 0;
}
...

Such code used in many radio-drivers as i understand.

Is it good to place this empty and almost empty functions in:
(here i see two variants)

1) In header file that be in linux/drivers/media/radio/ directory.
Later, we can move some generic/or repeating code in this header.

2) In any v4l header. What header may contain this ? 

?

For what ? Well, as i understand we can decrease amount of lines and
provide this simple generic functions. It's like
video_device_release_empty function behaviour. Maybe not only radio
drivers can use such vidioc_g_input and vidioc_s_input.

Is it worth ?

-- 
Best regards, Klimov Alexey

Re: [question] about open/release and vidioc_g_input/vidioc_s_input functions

[Hans Verkuil]

On Tuesday 24 March 2009 00:14:07 Alexey Klimov wrote:
> Hello, all
>
> After last convertion of radio drivers to use v4l2_device we have such
> code in many radio drivers:
> (it's radio-terratec.c for example)
>
> ...
>  static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
> {
>         return 0;
> }
>
> static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
> {
>         return 0;
> }
> ...
>
> and
>
> ...
> static int vidioc_g_input(struct file *filp, void *priv, unsigned int
> *i)
> {
>         *i = 0;
>         return 0;
> }
>
> static int vidioc_s_input(struct file *filp, void *priv, unsigned int i)
> {
>         return i ? -EINVAL : 0;
> }
> ...
>
> Such code used in many radio-drivers as i understand.
>
> Is it good to place this empty and almost empty functions in:
> (here i see two variants)
>
> 1) In header file that be in linux/drivers/media/radio/ directory.
> Later, we can move some generic/or repeating code in this header.
>
> 2) In any v4l header. What header may contain this ?
>
> ?
>
> For what ? Well, as i understand we can decrease amount of lines and
> provide this simple generic functions. It's like
> video_device_release_empty function behaviour. Maybe not only radio
> drivers can use such vidioc_g_input and vidioc_s_input.
>
> Is it worth ?

I don't think it is worth doing this for g/s_input. I think it is useful to 
have them here: it makes it very clear that there is just a single input 
and the overhead in both lines and actual bytes is minimal.

But for the empty open and release functions you could easily handle that in 
v4l2-dev.c: if you leave the open and release callbacks to NULL, then 
v4l2_open and v4l2_release can just return 0. That would be nice.

Regards,

	Hans

-- 
Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG

Re: [question] about open/release and vidioc_g_input/vidioc_s_input functions

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Tuesday 24 March 2009 08:06:39 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2009 00:14:07 Alexey Klimov wrote:
> > Hello, all
> >
> > After last convertion of radio drivers to use v4l2_device we have such
> > code in many radio drivers:
> > (it's radio-terratec.c for example)
> >
> > ...
> >  static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
> > {
> >         return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
> > {
> >         return 0;
> > }
> > ...
> >
> > and
> >
> > ...
> > static int vidioc_g_input(struct file *filp, void *priv, unsigned int
> > *i)
> > {
> >         *i = 0;
> >         return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int vidioc_s_input(struct file *filp, void *priv, unsigned int i)
> > {
> >         return i ? -EINVAL : 0;
> > }
> > ...
> >
> > Such code used in many radio-drivers as i understand.
> >
> > Is it good to place this empty and almost empty functions in:
> > (here i see two variants)
> >
> > 1) In header file that be in linux/drivers/media/radio/ directory.
> > Later, we can move some generic/or repeating code in this header.
> >
> > 2) In any v4l header. What header may contain this ?
> >
> > ?
> >
> > For what ? Well, as i understand we can decrease amount of lines and
> > provide this simple generic functions. It's like
> > video_device_release_empty function behaviour. Maybe not only radio
> > drivers can use such vidioc_g_input and vidioc_s_input.
> >
> > Is it worth ?
>
> I don't think it is worth doing this for g/s_input. I think it is useful to
> have them here: it makes it very clear that there is just a single input
> and the overhead in both lines and actual bytes is minimal.

What about making that the default NULL g_input/s_input callbacks handling in 
video_ioctl2 ? Devices with a single input wouldn't need to define 
g_input/s_input callbacks at all.

> But for the empty open and release functions you could easily handle that
> in v4l2-dev.c: if you leave the open and release callbacks to NULL, then
> v4l2_open and v4l2_release can just return 0. That would be nice.

Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [question] about open/release and vidioc_g_input/vidioc_s_input functions

[Hans Verkuil]

> On Tuesday 24 March 2009 08:06:39 Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> On Tuesday 24 March 2009 00:14:07 Alexey Klimov wrote:
>> > Hello, all
>> >
>> > After last convertion of radio drivers to use v4l2_device we have such
>> > code in many radio drivers:
>> > (it's radio-terratec.c for example)
>> >
>> > ...
>> >  static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
>> > {
>> >         return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>> > static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
>> > {
>> >         return 0;
>> > }
>> > ...
>> >
>> > and
>> >
>> > ...
>> > static int vidioc_g_input(struct file *filp, void *priv, unsigned int
>> > *i)
>> > {
>> >         *i = 0;
>> >         return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>> > static int vidioc_s_input(struct file *filp, void *priv, unsigned int
>> i)
>> > {
>> >         return i ? -EINVAL : 0;
>> > }
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Such code used in many radio-drivers as i understand.
>> >
>> > Is it good to place this empty and almost empty functions in:
>> > (here i see two variants)
>> >
>> > 1) In header file that be in linux/drivers/media/radio/ directory.
>> > Later, we can move some generic/or repeating code in this header.
>> >
>> > 2) In any v4l header. What header may contain this ?
>> >
>> > ?
>> >
>> > For what ? Well, as i understand we can decrease amount of lines and
>> > provide this simple generic functions. It's like
>> > video_device_release_empty function behaviour. Maybe not only radio
>> > drivers can use such vidioc_g_input and vidioc_s_input.
>> >
>> > Is it worth ?
>>
>> I don't think it is worth doing this for g/s_input. I think it is useful
>> to
>> have them here: it makes it very clear that there is just a single input
>> and the overhead in both lines and actual bytes is minimal.
>
> What about making that the default NULL g_input/s_input callbacks handling
> in
> video_ioctl2 ? Devices with a single input wouldn't need to define
> g_input/s_input callbacks at all.

If you leave s/g_input NULL then you have a device without an input at
all. That's perfectly valid for output-only devices.

Regards,

         Hans

-- 
Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG

Re: [question] about open/release and vidioc_g_input/vidioc_s_input functions

[Alexey Klimov]

Hello, Hans

On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 08:06 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2009 00:14:07 Alexey Klimov wrote:
> > Hello, all
> >
> > ...
> >  static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
> > {
> >         return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
> > {
> >         return 0;
> > }
> > ...
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Such code used in many radio-drivers as i understand.
> >
> > Is it good to place this empty and almost empty functions in:
> > (here i see two variants)
> >
> > 1) In header file that be in linux/drivers/media/radio/ directory.
> > Later, we can move some generic/or repeating code in this header.
> >
> > 2) In any v4l header. What header may contain this ?
> >
> > ?
> >
> > For what ? Well, as i understand we can decrease amount of lines and
> > provide this simple generic functions. It's like
> > video_device_release_empty function behaviour. Maybe not only radio
> > drivers can use such vidioc_g_input and vidioc_s_input.
> >
> > Is it worth ?
> 
> I don't think it is worth doing this for g/s_input. I think it is useful to 
> have them here: it makes it very clear that there is just a single input 
> and the overhead in both lines and actual bytes is minimal.
> 
> But for the empty open and release functions you could easily handle that in 
> v4l2-dev.c: if you leave the open and release callbacks to NULL, then 
> v4l2_open and v4l2_release can just return 0. That would be nice.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 	Hans
> 

May i ask help with this ?
Hans, should it be looks like:

diff -r 56cf0f1772f7 linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c
--- a/linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c	Mon Mar 23 19:18:34 2009 -0300
+++ b/linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c	Fri Mar 27 19:32:38 2009 +0300
@@ -333,20 +333,8 @@
 	return a->index ? -EINVAL : 0;
 }
 
-static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
-{
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
-{
-	return 0;
-}
-
 static const struct v4l2_file_operations terratec_fops = {
 	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
-	.open           = terratec_open,
-	.release        = terratec_release,
 	.ioctl		= video_ioctl2,
 };
 
diff -r 56cf0f1772f7 linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c
--- a/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c	Mon Mar 23 19:18:34 2009 -0300
+++ b/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c	Fri Mar 27 19:32:38 2009 +0300
@@ -264,7 +264,10 @@
 	/* and increase the device refcount */
 	video_get(vdev);
 	mutex_unlock(&videodev_lock);
-	ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
+	if (vdev->fops->open == NULL)
+		ret = 0;
+	else
+		ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
 	/* decrease the refcount in case of an error */
 	if (ret)
 		video_put(vdev);
@@ -275,7 +278,12 @@
 static int v4l2_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
 {
 	struct video_device *vdev = video_devdata(filp);
-	int ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
+	int ret;
+
+	if (vdev->fops->release == NULL)
+		ret = 0;
+	else
+		ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
 
 	/* decrease the refcount unconditionally since the release()
 	   return value is ignored. */

?

Or in v4l2_open function i can check if vdev->fops->open == NULL before
video_get(vdev); (increasing the device refcount), and if it's NULL then
unlock_mutex and return 0 ?
And the same in v4l2_release - just return 0 in the begining of function
in case vdev->fops->release == NULL ?

What approach is better ?

-- 
Best regards, Klimov Alexey

Re: [question] about open/release and vidioc_g_input/vidioc_s_input functions

[Hans Verkuil]

On Friday 27 March 2009 17:44:05 Alexey Klimov wrote:
> Hello, Hans
>
> On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 08:06 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 00:14:07 Alexey Klimov wrote:
> > > Hello, all
> > >
> > > ...
> > >  static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
> > > {
> > >         return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
> > > {
> > >         return 0;
> > > }
> > > ...
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Such code used in many radio-drivers as i understand.
> > >
> > > Is it good to place this empty and almost empty functions in:
> > > (here i see two variants)
> > >
> > > 1) In header file that be in linux/drivers/media/radio/ directory.
> > > Later, we can move some generic/or repeating code in this header.
> > >
> > > 2) In any v4l header. What header may contain this ?
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > For what ? Well, as i understand we can decrease amount of lines and
> > > provide this simple generic functions. It's like
> > > video_device_release_empty function behaviour. Maybe not only radio
> > > drivers can use such vidioc_g_input and vidioc_s_input.
> > >
> > > Is it worth ?
> >
> > I don't think it is worth doing this for g/s_input. I think it is
> > useful to have them here: it makes it very clear that there is just a
> > single input and the overhead in both lines and actual bytes is
> > minimal.
> >
> > But for the empty open and release functions you could easily handle
> > that in v4l2-dev.c: if you leave the open and release callbacks to
> > NULL, then v4l2_open and v4l2_release can just return 0. That would be
> > nice.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 	Hans
>
> May i ask help with this ?
> Hans, should it be looks like:
>
> diff -r 56cf0f1772f7 linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c
> --- a/linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c	Mon Mar 23 19:18:34 2009
> -0300 +++ b/linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c	Fri Mar 27
> 19:32:38 2009 +0300 @@ -333,20 +333,8 @@
>  	return a->index ? -EINVAL : 0;
>  }
>
> -static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
> -{
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
> -{
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
>  static const struct v4l2_file_operations terratec_fops = {
>  	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
> -	.open           = terratec_open,
> -	.release        = terratec_release,
>  	.ioctl		= video_ioctl2,
>  };
>
> diff -r 56cf0f1772f7 linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c
> --- a/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c	Mon Mar 23 19:18:34 2009 -0300
> +++ b/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c	Fri Mar 27 19:32:38 2009 +0300
> @@ -264,7 +264,10 @@
>  	/* and increase the device refcount */
>  	video_get(vdev);
>  	mutex_unlock(&videodev_lock);
> -	ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
> +	if (vdev->fops->open == NULL)
> +		ret = 0;
> +	else
> +		ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
>  	/* decrease the refcount in case of an error */
>  	if (ret)
>  		video_put(vdev);
> @@ -275,7 +278,12 @@
>  static int v4l2_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>  {
>  	struct video_device *vdev = video_devdata(filp);
> -	int ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (vdev->fops->release == NULL)
> +		ret = 0;
> +	else
> +		ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
>
>  	/* decrease the refcount unconditionally since the release()
>  	   return value is ignored. */
>
> ?
>
> Or in v4l2_open function i can check if vdev->fops->open == NULL before
> video_get(vdev); (increasing the device refcount), and if it's NULL then
> unlock_mutex and return 0 ?
> And the same in v4l2_release - just return 0 in the begining of function
> in case vdev->fops->release == NULL ?
>
> What approach is better ?

This is simpler:

diff -r 2e0c6ff1bda3 linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c
--- a/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c      Mon Mar 23 19:01:18 2009 
+0100
+++ b/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c      Fri Mar 27 17:47:51 2009 
+0100
@@ -250,7 +250,7 @@
 static int v4l2_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
 {
        struct video_device *vdev;
-       int ret;
+       int ret = 0;

        /* Check if the video device is available */
        mutex_lock(&videodev_lock);
@@ -264,7 +264,9 @@
        /* and increase the device refcount */
        video_get(vdev);
        mutex_unlock(&videodev_lock);
-       ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
+       if (vdev->fops->open)
+               ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
+
        /* decrease the refcount in case of an error */
        if (ret)
                video_put(vdev);
@@ -275,7 +277,10 @@
 static int v4l2_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
 {
        struct video_device *vdev = video_devdata(filp);
-       int ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
+       int ret = 0;
+
+       if (vdev->fops->release)
+               ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);

        /* decrease the refcount unconditionally since the release()
           return value is ignored. */

Regards,

	Hans

-- 
Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG

Re: [question] about open/release and vidioc_g_input/vidioc_s_input functions

[Alexey Klimov]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Friday 27 March 2009 17:44:05 Alexey Klimov wrote:
>> Hello, Hans
>>
>> On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 08:06 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 00:14:07 Alexey Klimov wrote:
>> > > Hello, all
>> > >
>> > > ...
>> > >  static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
>> > > {
>> > >         return 0;
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
>> > > {
>> > >         return 0;
>> > > }
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > Such code used in many radio-drivers as i understand.
>> > >
>> > > Is it good to place this empty and almost empty functions in:
>> > > (here i see two variants)
>> > >
>> > > 1) In header file that be in linux/drivers/media/radio/ directory.
>> > > Later, we can move some generic/or repeating code in this header.
>> > >
>> > > 2) In any v4l header. What header may contain this ?
>> > >
>> > > ?
>> > >
>> > > For what ? Well, as i understand we can decrease amount of lines and
>> > > provide this simple generic functions. It's like
>> > > video_device_release_empty function behaviour. Maybe not only radio
>> > > drivers can use such vidioc_g_input and vidioc_s_input.
>> > >
>> > > Is it worth ?
>> >
>> > I don't think it is worth doing this for g/s_input. I think it is
>> > useful to have them here: it makes it very clear that there is just a
>> > single input and the overhead in both lines and actual bytes is
>> > minimal.
>> >
>> > But for the empty open and release functions you could easily handle
>> > that in v4l2-dev.c: if you leave the open and release callbacks to
>> > NULL, then v4l2_open and v4l2_release can just return 0. That would be
>> > nice.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> >     Hans
>>
>> May i ask help with this ?
>> Hans, should it be looks like:
>>
>> diff -r 56cf0f1772f7 linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c
>> --- a/linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c      Mon Mar 23 19:18:34 2009
>> -0300 +++ b/linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c        Fri Mar 27
>> 19:32:38 2009 +0300 @@ -333,20 +333,8 @@
>>       return a->index ? -EINVAL : 0;
>>  }
>>
>> -static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
>> -{
>> -     return 0;
>> -}
>> -
>> -static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
>> -{
>> -     return 0;
>> -}
>> -
>>  static const struct v4l2_file_operations terratec_fops = {
>>       .owner          = THIS_MODULE,
>> -     .open           = terratec_open,
>> -     .release        = terratec_release,
>>       .ioctl          = video_ioctl2,
>>  };
>>
>> diff -r 56cf0f1772f7 linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c
>> --- a/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c    Mon Mar 23 19:18:34 2009 -0300
>> +++ b/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c    Fri Mar 27 19:32:38 2009 +0300
>> @@ -264,7 +264,10 @@
>>       /* and increase the device refcount */
>>       video_get(vdev);
>>       mutex_unlock(&videodev_lock);
>> -     ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
>> +     if (vdev->fops->open == NULL)
>> +             ret = 0;
>> +     else
>> +             ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
>>       /* decrease the refcount in case of an error */
>>       if (ret)
>>               video_put(vdev);
>> @@ -275,7 +278,12 @@
>>  static int v4l2_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>>  {
>>       struct video_device *vdev = video_devdata(filp);
>> -     int ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
>> +     int ret;
>> +
>> +     if (vdev->fops->release == NULL)
>> +             ret = 0;
>> +     else
>> +             ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
>>
>>       /* decrease the refcount unconditionally since the release()
>>          return value is ignored. */
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Or in v4l2_open function i can check if vdev->fops->open == NULL before
>> video_get(vdev); (increasing the device refcount), and if it's NULL then
>> unlock_mutex and return 0 ?
>> And the same in v4l2_release - just return 0 in the begining of function
>> in case vdev->fops->release == NULL ?
>>
>> What approach is better ?
>
> This is simpler:
>
> diff -r 2e0c6ff1bda3 linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c
> --- a/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c      Mon Mar 23 19:01:18 2009
> +0100
> +++ b/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c      Fri Mar 27 17:47:51 2009
> +0100
> @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@
>  static int v4l2_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>  {
>        struct video_device *vdev;
> -       int ret;
> +       int ret = 0;
>
>        /* Check if the video device is available */
>        mutex_lock(&videodev_lock);
> @@ -264,7 +264,9 @@
>        /* and increase the device refcount */
>        video_get(vdev);
>        mutex_unlock(&videodev_lock);
> -       ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
> +       if (vdev->fops->open)
> +               ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
> +
>        /* decrease the refcount in case of an error */
>        if (ret)
>                video_put(vdev);
> @@ -275,7 +277,10 @@
>  static int v4l2_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>  {
>        struct video_device *vdev = video_devdata(filp);
> -       int ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
> +       int ret = 0;
> +
> +       if (vdev->fops->release)
> +               ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
>
>        /* decrease the refcount unconditionally since the release()
>           return value is ignored. */

Looks like you already did right patch ;-)
I don't know what to do, should i repost this like patch ?

-- 
Best regards, Klimov Alexey

Re: [question] about open/release and vidioc_g_input/vidioc_s_input functions

[Hans Verkuil]

On Friday 27 March 2009 18:34:01 Alexey Klimov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > On Friday 27 March 2009 17:44:05 Alexey Klimov wrote:
> >> Hello, Hans
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 08:06 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 00:14:07 Alexey Klimov wrote:
> >> > > Hello, all
> >> > >
> >> > > ...
> >> > >  static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
> >> > > {
> >> > >         return 0;
> >> > > }
> >> > >
> >> > > static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
> >> > > {
> >> > >         return 0;
> >> > > }
> >> > > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > Such code used in many radio-drivers as i understand.
> >> > >
> >> > > Is it good to place this empty and almost empty functions in:
> >> > > (here i see two variants)
> >> > >
> >> > > 1) In header file that be in linux/drivers/media/radio/ directory.
> >> > > Later, we can move some generic/or repeating code in this header.
> >> > >
> >> > > 2) In any v4l header. What header may contain this ?
> >> > >
> >> > > ?
> >> > >
> >> > > For what ? Well, as i understand we can decrease amount of lines
> >> > > and provide this simple generic functions. It's like
> >> > > video_device_release_empty function behaviour. Maybe not only
> >> > > radio drivers can use such vidioc_g_input and vidioc_s_input.
> >> > >
> >> > > Is it worth ?
> >> >
> >> > I don't think it is worth doing this for g/s_input. I think it is
> >> > useful to have them here: it makes it very clear that there is just
> >> > a single input and the overhead in both lines and actual bytes is
> >> > minimal.
> >> >
> >> > But for the empty open and release functions you could easily handle
> >> > that in v4l2-dev.c: if you leave the open and release callbacks to
> >> > NULL, then v4l2_open and v4l2_release can just return 0. That would
> >> > be nice.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> >     Hans
> >>
> >> May i ask help with this ?
> >> Hans, should it be looks like:
> >>
> >> diff -r 56cf0f1772f7 linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c
> >> --- a/linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c      Mon Mar 23
> >> 19:18:34 2009 -0300 +++ b/linux/drivers/media/radio/radio-terratec.c  
> >>      Fri Mar 27 19:32:38 2009 +0300 @@ -333,20 +333,8 @@
> >>       return a->index ? -EINVAL : 0;
> >>  }
> >>
> >> -static int terratec_open(struct file *file)
> >> -{
> >> -     return 0;
> >> -}
> >> -
> >> -static int terratec_release(struct file *file)
> >> -{
> >> -     return 0;
> >> -}
> >> -
> >>  static const struct v4l2_file_operations terratec_fops = {
> >>       .owner          = THIS_MODULE,
> >> -     .open           = terratec_open,
> >> -     .release        = terratec_release,
> >>       .ioctl          = video_ioctl2,
> >>  };
> >>
> >> diff -r 56cf0f1772f7 linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c
> >> --- a/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c    Mon Mar 23 19:18:34 2009
> >> -0300 +++ b/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c    Fri Mar 27
> >> 19:32:38 2009 +0300 @@ -264,7 +264,10 @@
> >>       /* and increase the device refcount */
> >>       video_get(vdev);
> >>       mutex_unlock(&videodev_lock);
> >> -     ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
> >> +     if (vdev->fops->open == NULL)
> >> +             ret = 0;
> >> +     else
> >> +             ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
> >>       /* decrease the refcount in case of an error */
> >>       if (ret)
> >>               video_put(vdev);
> >> @@ -275,7 +278,12 @@
> >>  static int v4l2_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> >>  {
> >>       struct video_device *vdev = video_devdata(filp);
> >> -     int ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
> >> +     int ret;
> >> +
> >> +     if (vdev->fops->release == NULL)
> >> +             ret = 0;
> >> +     else
> >> +             ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
> >>
> >>       /* decrease the refcount unconditionally since the release()
> >>          return value is ignored. */
> >>
> >> ?
> >>
> >> Or in v4l2_open function i can check if vdev->fops->open == NULL
> >> before video_get(vdev); (increasing the device refcount), and if it's
> >> NULL then unlock_mutex and return 0 ?
> >> And the same in v4l2_release - just return 0 in the begining of
> >> function in case vdev->fops->release == NULL ?
> >>
> >> What approach is better ?
> >
> > This is simpler:
> >
> > diff -r 2e0c6ff1bda3 linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c
> > --- a/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c      Mon Mar 23 19:01:18
> > 2009 +0100
> > +++ b/linux/drivers/media/video/v4l2-dev.c      Fri Mar 27 17:47:51
> > 2009 +0100
> > @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@
> >  static int v4l2_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> >  {
> >        struct video_device *vdev;
> > -       int ret;
> > +       int ret = 0;
> >
> >        /* Check if the video device is available */
> >        mutex_lock(&videodev_lock);
> > @@ -264,7 +264,9 @@
> >        /* and increase the device refcount */
> >        video_get(vdev);
> >        mutex_unlock(&videodev_lock);
> > -       ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
> > +       if (vdev->fops->open)
> > +               ret = vdev->fops->open(filp);
> > +
> >        /* decrease the refcount in case of an error */
> >        if (ret)
> >                video_put(vdev);
> > @@ -275,7 +277,10 @@
> >  static int v4l2_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> >  {
> >        struct video_device *vdev = video_devdata(filp);
> > -       int ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
> > +       int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +       if (vdev->fops->release)
> > +               ret = vdev->fops->release(filp);
> >
> >        /* decrease the refcount unconditionally since the release()
> >           return value is ignored. */
>
> Looks like you already did right patch ;-)
> I don't know what to do, should i repost this like patch ?

Just turn it into a patch series with this as the first patch and fixing the 
radio drivers that can use it.

Here's my SoB for this one:

Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>

Regards,

	Hans

-- 
Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG