[libcamera-devel] [PATCH v3 4/5] libcamera: properties: Provide a Devices camera property

[Kieran Bingham]

Quoting Barnabás Pőcze (2023-06-13 16:48:39)
> Hi
> 
> 
> 2023. június 12., hétfő 18:28 keltezéssel, Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham at ideasonboard.com> írta:
> 
> > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/src/libcamera/property_ids.yaml b/src/libcamera/property_ids.yaml
> > > > index cb55e0ed2283..6141942969f9 100644
> > > > --- a/src/libcamera/property_ids.yaml
> > > > +++ b/src/libcamera/property_ids.yaml
> > > > @@ -690,6 +690,13 @@ controls:
> > > >          that is twice that of the full resolution mode. This value will be valid
> > > >          after the configure method has returned successfully.
> > > >
> > > > +  - Devices:
> > > > +      type: int64_t
> > >
> > > I am wondering why the type is `int64_t`. POSIX only says `dev_t` is an integer type[0].
> > > Both glibc[1] and musl[2] define it as an unsigned (64-bit) integer (at least as far as I checked).
> > 
> > Indeed every implementation I can see define it as a 64-bit, but the
> > kernel uses only 32 bits.
> > 
> > This is a libcamera control limitation ultimately, as we don't have
> > unsigned integer controls. I'm not sure yet if adding would be helpful
> > or difficult. It might be worth trying out.
> > [...]
> 
> Ahh, I wasn't aware that libcamera does not have uint controls. Thanks for the clarification.

Have you reviewed the patches enough to consider providing a set of
Reviewed-by tags perhaps?

Do you have any thoughts or preferences on the control name? Laurent has
discussed the option between "Devices" and "SystemDevices" - I'm really
hoping someone will weigh in on which they prefer to be able to move
forwards and merge this series.

(I prefer Devices, so that makes it 1 vs 1)

--
Regards

Kieran


> 
> 
> Regards,
> Barnabás Pőcze