From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.12]:42950 "EHLO mailout2.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750787Ab1IAJOL (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 05:14:11 -0400 Received: from euspt1 (mailout2.w1.samsung.com [210.118.77.12]) by mailout2.w1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0LQU002U26ZLBU@mailout2.w1.samsung.com> for linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:14:09 +0100 (BST) Received: from linux.samsung.com ([106.116.38.10]) by spt1.w1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0LQU00FMJ6ZKCP@spt1.w1.samsung.com> for linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:14:09 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:14:08 +0200 From: Sylwester Nawrocki Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: Add camera controls for the ov5642 driver In-reply-to: <20110901084722.GV12368@valkosipuli.localdomain> To: Sakari Ailus Cc: Guennadi Liakhovetski , Bastian Hecht , Laurent Pinchart , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, hverkuil@xs4all.nl Message-id: <4E5F4CE0.8050909@samsung.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <201108282006.09790.laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> <20110831212010.GS12368@valkosipuli.localdomain> <20110901084722.GV12368@valkosipuli.localdomain> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Sakari, On 09/01/2011 10:47 AM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 09:15:20AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Sakari Ailus wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 03:27:49PM +0000, Bastian Hecht wrote: >>>> 2011/8/28 Laurent Pinchart : >>> [clip] >>>>> If I'm not mistaken V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE is deprecated. >>>> >>>> I checked at http://v4l2spec.bytesex.org/spec/x542.htm, googled >>>> "V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE deprecated" and read >>>> Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt. I couldn't find anything. >>> >>> Hmm. Did you happen to check when that has been written? :) >>> >>> Please use this one instead: >>> >>> >> >> "Drivers can also implement their own custom controls using >> V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE and higher values." >> >> Which specific location describes V4L2_CID_PRIVATE_BASE differently there? > > That was a general comment, not related to the private base. There's no > use for a three-year-old spec as a reference! > > The control framework does not support private controls, for example. The > controls should be put to their own class in videodev2.h nowadays, that's my > understanding. Cc Hans. Is this really the case that we close the door for private controls in the mainline kernel ? Or am I misunderstanding something ? How about v4l2_ctrl_new_custom() ? What if there are controls applicable to single driver only ? Do we really want to have plenty of such in videodev2.h ? -- Sylwester Nawrocki Samsung Poland R&D Center