* notifier is skipped in some situations
@ 2017-11-24 1:00 Jacob Chen
2017-11-24 8:55 ` Sakari Ailus
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jacob Chen @ 2017-11-24 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sakari Ailus, Linux Media Mailing List, Hans Verkuil,
Laurent Pinchart, Tomasz Figa
Hi Sakari,
I encountered a problem when using async sub-notifiers.
It's like that:
There are two notifiers, and they are waiting for one subdev.
When this subdev is probing, only one notifier is completed and
the other one is skipped.
I found that in v15 of patch "v4l: async: Allow binding notifiers to
sub-devices", "v4l2_async_notifier_complete" is replaced by
v4l2_async_notifier_call_complete, which make it only complete one
notifier.
Why is it changed? Can this be fixed?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: notifier is skipped in some situations 2017-11-24 1:00 notifier is skipped in some situations Jacob Chen @ 2017-11-24 8:55 ` Sakari Ailus 2017-11-24 9:03 ` Tomasz Figa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Sakari Ailus @ 2017-11-24 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jacob Chen Cc: Linux Media Mailing List, Hans Verkuil, Laurent Pinchart, Tomasz Figa Hi Jacob, On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:00:14AM +0800, Jacob Chen wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > I encountered a problem when using async sub-notifiers. > > It's like that: > There are two notifiers, and they are waiting for one subdev. > When this subdev is probing, only one notifier is completed and > the other one is skipped. Do you have a graph that has two master drivers (that register the notifier) and both are connected to the same sub-device? Could you provide exact graph you have? > > I found that in v15 of patch "v4l: async: Allow binding notifiers to > sub-devices", "v4l2_async_notifier_complete" is replaced by > v4l2_async_notifier_call_complete, which make it only complete one > notifier. > > Why is it changed? Can this be fixed? -- Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: notifier is skipped in some situations 2017-11-24 8:55 ` Sakari Ailus @ 2017-11-24 9:03 ` Tomasz Figa 2017-11-24 9:17 ` Sakari Ailus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Tomasz Figa @ 2017-11-24 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sakari Ailus Cc: Jacob Chen, Linux Media Mailing List, Hans Verkuil, Laurent Pinchart Hi Sakari, We have the following graph: ISP (registers notifier for v4l2_dev) | PHY (registers notifier for v4l2_subdev, just like sensors for flash/focuser) | \ sensor0 sensor1 ... Both ISP and PHY are completely separate drivers not directly aware of each other, since we have several different PHY IP blocks that we need to support and some of them are multi-functional, such as CSI+DSI PHY and need to be supported by drivers independent from the ISP driver. Best regards, Tomasz On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Hi Jacob, > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:00:14AM +0800, Jacob Chen wrote: >> Hi Sakari, >> >> I encountered a problem when using async sub-notifiers. >> >> It's like that: >> There are two notifiers, and they are waiting for one subdev. >> When this subdev is probing, only one notifier is completed and >> the other one is skipped. > > Do you have a graph that has two master drivers (that register the > notifier) and both are connected to the same sub-device? Could you provide > exact graph you have? > >> >> I found that in v15 of patch "v4l: async: Allow binding notifiers to >> sub-devices", "v4l2_async_notifier_complete" is replaced by >> v4l2_async_notifier_call_complete, which make it only complete one >> notifier. >> >> Why is it changed? Can this be fixed? > > -- > Sakari Ailus > sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: notifier is skipped in some situations 2017-11-24 9:03 ` Tomasz Figa @ 2017-11-24 9:17 ` Sakari Ailus 2017-11-24 9:19 ` Tomasz Figa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Sakari Ailus @ 2017-11-24 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Jacob Chen, Linux Media Mailing List, Hans Verkuil, Laurent Pinchart Hi Tomasz, On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:03:26PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > We have the following graph: > > ISP (registers notifier for v4l2_dev) > > | > > PHY (registers notifier for v4l2_subdev, just like sensors for > flash/focuser) > > | \ > > sensor0 sensor1 > > ... > > Both ISP and PHY are completely separate drivers not directly aware of > each other, since we have several different PHY IP blocks that we need > to support and some of them are multi-functional, such as CSI+DSI PHY > and need to be supported by drivers independent from the ISP driver. That should work fine. In the above case there are two notifiers, indeed, but they're not expecting the *same* sub-devices. What this could be about is that in some version of the set I disabled the complete callback on the sub-notifiers for two reasons: there was no need seen for them and the complete callback is problematic in general (there's been discussion on that, mostly related to earlier versions of the fwnode parsing patchset, on #v4l and along the Renesas rcar-csi2 patchsets). > > Best regards, > Tomasz > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Sakari Ailus > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Jacob, > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:00:14AM +0800, Jacob Chen wrote: > >> Hi Sakari, > >> > >> I encountered a problem when using async sub-notifiers. > >> > >> It's like that: > >> There are two notifiers, and they are waiting for one subdev. > >> When this subdev is probing, only one notifier is completed and > >> the other one is skipped. > > > > Do you have a graph that has two master drivers (that register the > > notifier) and both are connected to the same sub-device? Could you provide > > exact graph you have? > > > >> > >> I found that in v15 of patch "v4l: async: Allow binding notifiers to > >> sub-devices", "v4l2_async_notifier_complete" is replaced by > >> v4l2_async_notifier_call_complete, which make it only complete one > >> notifier. > >> > >> Why is it changed? Can this be fixed? > > > > -- > > Sakari Ailus > > sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com -- Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: notifier is skipped in some situations 2017-11-24 9:17 ` Sakari Ailus @ 2017-11-24 9:19 ` Tomasz Figa [not found] ` <1725377.6lDSOU2C5Q@macbookair> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Tomasz Figa @ 2017-11-24 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sakari Ailus, Jacob Chen Cc: Linux Media Mailing List, Hans Verkuil, Laurent Pinchart On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Hi Tomasz, > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:03:26PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> Hi Sakari, >> >> We have the following graph: >> >> ISP (registers notifier for v4l2_dev) >> >> | >> >> PHY (registers notifier for v4l2_subdev, just like sensors for >> flash/focuser) >> >> | \ >> >> sensor0 sensor1 >> >> ... >> >> Both ISP and PHY are completely separate drivers not directly aware of >> each other, since we have several different PHY IP blocks that we need >> to support and some of them are multi-functional, such as CSI+DSI PHY >> and need to be supported by drivers independent from the ISP driver. > > That should work fine. In the above case there are two notifiers, indeed, > but they're not expecting the *same* sub-devices. Got it. Jacob, could you make sure there are no mistakes in the Device Tree source? Best regards, Tomasz > > What this could be about is that in some version of the set I disabled the > complete callback on the sub-notifiers for two reasons: there was no need > seen for them and the complete callback is problematic in general (there's > been discussion on that, mostly related to earlier versions of the fwnode > parsing patchset, on #v4l and along the Renesas rcar-csi2 patchsets). > >> >> Best regards, >> Tomasz >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Sakari Ailus >> <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> > Hi Jacob, >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:00:14AM +0800, Jacob Chen wrote: >> >> Hi Sakari, >> >> >> >> I encountered a problem when using async sub-notifiers. >> >> >> >> It's like that: >> >> There are two notifiers, and they are waiting for one subdev. >> >> When this subdev is probing, only one notifier is completed and >> >> the other one is skipped. >> > >> > Do you have a graph that has two master drivers (that register the >> > notifier) and both are connected to the same sub-device? Could you provide >> > exact graph you have? >> > >> >> >> >> I found that in v15 of patch "v4l: async: Allow binding notifiers to >> >> sub-devices", "v4l2_async_notifier_complete" is replaced by >> >> v4l2_async_notifier_call_complete, which make it only complete one >> >> notifier. >> >> >> >> Why is it changed? Can this be fixed? >> > >> > -- >> > Sakari Ailus >> > sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com > > -- > Sakari Ailus > sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1725377.6lDSOU2C5Q@macbookair>]
[parent not found: <7578236.BQvekhbvUq@macbookair>]
* Re: notifier is skipped in some situations [not found] ` <7578236.BQvekhbvUq@macbookair> @ 2017-11-29 12:29 ` Sakari Ailus [not found] ` <8641274.XBun1tTRXh@macbookair> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Sakari Ailus @ 2017-11-29 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jacob Chen Cc: Tomasz Figa, Linux Media Mailing List, Hans Verkuil, Laurent Pinchart Hi Jacob, On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:03:59PM +0800, Jacob Chen wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017年11月25日星期六 CST 下午1:05:42 you wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2017年11月24日星期五 CST 下午6:19:36 you wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Sakari Ailus > > > > > > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Tomasz, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:03:26PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > >> Hi Sakari, > > > >> > > > >> We have the following graph: > > > >> ISP (registers notifier for v4l2_dev) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> PHY (registers notifier for v4l2_subdev, just like sensors for > > > >> > > > >> flash/focuser) > > > >> > > > >> | \ > > > >> > > > >> sensor0 sensor1 > > > >> > > > >> ... > > > >> > > > >> Both ISP and PHY are completely separate drivers not directly aware of > > > >> each other, since we have several different PHY IP blocks that we need > > > >> to support and some of them are multi-functional, such as CSI+DSI PHY > > > >> and need to be supported by drivers independent from the ISP driver. > > > > > > > > That should work fine. In the above case there are two notifiers, > > > > indeed, > > > > but they're not expecting the *same* sub-devices. > > > > > > Got it. > > > > > > Jacob, could you make sure there are no mistakes in the Device Tree > > > source? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Tomasz > > > > I see... > > This problem might be sloved by moving `v4l2_async_subdev_notifier_register` > > after `v4l2_async_register_subdev`. I will test it. > > > > > > What this could be about is that in some version of the set I disabled > > > > the > > > > complete callback on the sub-notifiers for two reasons: there was no > > > > need > > > > seen for them and the complete callback is problematic in general > > > > (there's > > > > been discussion on that, mostly related to earlier versions of the > > > > fwnode > > > > parsing patchset, on #v4l and along the Renesas rcar-csi2 patchsets). > > > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> Tomasz > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Sakari Ailus > > > >> > > > >> <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > >> > Hi Jacob, > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:00:14AM +0800, Jacob Chen wrote: > > > >> >> Hi Sakari, > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I encountered a problem when using async sub-notifiers. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> It's like that: > > > >> >> There are two notifiers, and they are waiting for one subdev. > > > >> >> When this subdev is probing, only one notifier is completed and > > > >> >> > > > >> >> the other one is skipped. > > > >> > > > > >> > Do you have a graph that has two master drivers (that register the > > > >> > notifier) and both are connected to the same sub-device? Could you > > > >> > provide > > > >> > exact graph you have? > > > >> > > > > >> >> I found that in v15 of patch "v4l: async: Allow binding notifiers to > > > >> >> sub-devices", "v4l2_async_notifier_complete" is replaced by > > > >> >> v4l2_async_notifier_call_complete, which make it only complete one > > > >> >> notifier. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Why is it changed? Can this be fixed? > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Sakari Ailus > > > >> > sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sakari Ailus > > > > sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com > > I make a mistake, they are not expecting same subdev..... > > The problem is that a notifier regsitered by > `v4l2_async_subdev_notifier_register` will never be completed, becuase > 1.`notifier->waiting` is always not empty, so v4l2_async_notifier_try_complete > won't be called. > 2. In old code, it's called by its parent, but now it won't. Could you provide a bit more context, what exactly fails and in which order the notifiers are registered and async sub-device matches are found? > > > > static int v4l2_async_notifier_try_complete( > > struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier) > > { > > /* Quick check whether there are still more sub-devices here. */ > > if (!list_empty(¬ifier->waiting)) > > return 0; > > not empty > > > static int v4l2_async_match_notify(struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier, > > struct v4l2_device *v4l2_dev, > > struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd) > > { > > struct v4l2_async_notifier *subdev_notifier; > > int ret; > > > > ret = v4l2_device_register_subdev(v4l2_dev, sd); > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > > > ret = v4l2_async_notifier_call_bound(notifier, sd, asd); > > if (ret < 0) { > > v4l2_device_unregister_subdev(sd); > > return ret; > > } > > > > /* Remove from the waiting list */ > > list_del(&asd->list); > > asd is removed from the waiting list in `v4l2_async_match_notify`, but > > >static int v4l2_async_notifier_try_all_subdevs( > > struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier) > >{ > > ... > > if (!v4l2_dev) > > return 0; > > A notifier regsitered by `v4l2_async_subdev_notifier_register` will return in > here. > > > ... > > ret = v4l2_async_match_notify(notifier, v4l2_dev, sd, asd); > > > >int v4l2_async_register_subdev(struct v4l2_subdev *sd) > >{ > > ... > > list_for_each_entry(notifier, ¬ifier_list, list) { > > struct v4l2_device *v4l2_dev = > > v4l2_async_notifier_find_v4l2_dev(notifier); > > struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd; > > > > if (!v4l2_dev) > > continue; > > > > same > > > asd = v4l2_async_find_match(notifier, sd); > > if (!asd) > > continue; > > > > ret = v4l2_async_match_notify(notifier, notifier->v4l2_dev, sd, > > asd); > > > > -- Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <8641274.XBun1tTRXh@macbookair>]
* Re: notifier is skipped in some situations [not found] ` <8641274.XBun1tTRXh@macbookair> @ 2017-12-01 11:17 ` Sakari Ailus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Sakari Ailus @ 2017-12-01 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jacob Chen Cc: Tomasz Figa, Linux Media Mailing List, Hans Verkuil, Laurent Pinchart Hi Jacob, On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:37:06AM +0800, Jacob Chen wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > On 2017年11月29日星期三 CST 下午2:29:03 you wrote: > > Hi Jacob, > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:03:59PM +0800, Jacob Chen wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 2017年11月25日星期六 CST 下午1:05:42 you wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On 2017年11月24日星期五 CST 下午6:19:36 you wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Sakari Ailus > > > > > > > > > > <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tomasz, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:03:26PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Sakari, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We have the following graph: > > > > > >> ISP (registers notifier for v4l2_dev) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> PHY (registers notifier for v4l2_subdev, just like sensors for > > > > > >> > > > > > >> flash/focuser) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> | \ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> sensor0 sensor1 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ... > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Both ISP and PHY are completely separate drivers not directly aware > > > > > >> of > > > > > >> each other, since we have several different PHY IP blocks that we > > > > > >> need > > > > > >> to support and some of them are multi-functional, such as CSI+DSI > > > > > >> PHY > > > > > >> and need to be supported by drivers independent from the ISP > > > > > >> driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > That should work fine. In the above case there are two notifiers, > > > > > > indeed, > > > > > > but they're not expecting the *same* sub-devices. > > > > > > > > > > Got it. > > > > > > > > > > Jacob, could you make sure there are no mistakes in the Device Tree > > > > > source? > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Tomasz > > > > > > > > I see... > > > > This problem might be sloved by moving > > > > `v4l2_async_subdev_notifier_register` after > > > > `v4l2_async_register_subdev`. I will test it. > > > > > > > > > > What this could be about is that in some version of the set I > > > > > > disabled > > > > > > the > > > > > > complete callback on the sub-notifiers for two reasons: there was no > > > > > > need > > > > > > seen for them and the complete callback is problematic in general > > > > > > (there's > > > > > > been discussion on that, mostly related to earlier versions of the > > > > > > fwnode > > > > > > parsing patchset, on #v4l and along the Renesas rcar-csi2 > > > > > > patchsets). > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > >> Tomasz > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Sakari Ailus > > > > > >> > > > > > >> <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > Hi Jacob, > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:00:14AM +0800, Jacob Chen wrote: > > > > > >> >> Hi Sakari, > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> I encountered a problem when using async sub-notifiers. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> It's like that: > > > > > >> >> There are two notifiers, and they are waiting for one > > > > > >> >> subdev. > > > > > >> >> When this subdev is probing, only one notifier is completed > > > > > >> >> and > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> the other one is skipped. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Do you have a graph that has two master drivers (that register > > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > notifier) and both are connected to the same sub-device? Could > > > > > >> > you > > > > > >> > provide > > > > > >> > exact graph you have? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> I found that in v15 of patch "v4l: async: Allow binding > > > > > >> >> notifiers to > > > > > >> >> sub-devices", "v4l2_async_notifier_complete" is replaced by > > > > > >> >> v4l2_async_notifier_call_complete, which make it only complete > > > > > >> >> one > > > > > >> >> notifier. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> Why is it changed? Can this be fixed? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > >> > Sakari Ailus > > > > > >> > sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sakari Ailus > > > > > > sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com > > > > > > I make a mistake, they are not expecting same subdev..... > > > > > > The problem is that a notifier regsitered by > > > `v4l2_async_subdev_notifier_register` will never be completed, becuase > > > 1.`notifier->waiting` is always not empty, so > > > v4l2_async_notifier_try_complete won't be called. > > > 2. In old code, it's called by its parent, but now it won't. > > > > Could you provide a bit more context, what exactly fails and in which order > > the notifiers are registered and async sub-device matches are found? > > > > The order doesn't matter. > Both of below orders will fail. > 1. > v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_endpoints_by_port(NOTIFIER1) > v4l2_async_subdev_notifier_register(NOTIFIER1, PHY) > v4l2_async_register_subdev(PHY) > > 1. > v4l2_async_register_subdev(PHY) > v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_endpoints_by_port(NOTIFIER1) > v4l2_async_subdev_notifier_register(NOTIFIER1, PHY) > > found Match: > NOTIFIER1 --> SENSOR > > dts: > PHY --> SENSOR > > By having a quick look at the code, i don't find a way that a notifier > regsitered by v4l2_async_subdev_notifier_register can be completed. That's right. As I previously explained, it is a design decision not to support complete callback for sub-device notifiers. This is also documented in KernelDoc for struct v4l2_async_notifier_operations but it could be added to v4l2_async_subdev_notifier_register for clarity. Do you have a particular need for calling the complete callback for the sub-device notifier? > > > > > > static int v4l2_async_notifier_try_complete( > > > > > > > > struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > /* Quick check whether there are still more sub-devices here. */ > > > > if (!list_empty(¬ifier->waiting)) > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > not empty > > > > > > > static int v4l2_async_match_notify(struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier, > > > > > > > > struct v4l2_device *v4l2_dev, > > > > struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > > > struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > struct v4l2_async_notifier *subdev_notifier; > > > > int ret; > > > > > > > > ret = v4l2_device_register_subdev(v4l2_dev, sd); > > > > if (ret < 0) > > > > > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > ret = v4l2_async_notifier_call_bound(notifier, sd, asd); > > > > if (ret < 0) { > > > > > > > > v4l2_device_unregister_subdev(sd); > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > /* Remove from the waiting list */ > > > > list_del(&asd->list); > > > > > > asd is removed from the waiting list in `v4l2_async_match_notify`, but > > > > > > >static int v4l2_async_notifier_try_all_subdevs( > > > > > > > > struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier) > > > > > > > >{ > > > > > > > > ... > > > > if (!v4l2_dev) > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > A notifier regsitered by `v4l2_async_subdev_notifier_register` will > > > return in here. > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > ret = v4l2_async_match_notify(notifier, v4l2_dev, sd, asd); > > > > > > > >int v4l2_async_register_subdev(struct v4l2_subdev *sd) > > > >{ > > > > > > > > ... > > > > list_for_each_entry(notifier, ¬ifier_list, list) { > > > > > > > > struct v4l2_device *v4l2_dev = > > > > > > > > v4l2_async_notifier_find_v4l2_dev(notifier); > > > > > > > > struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd; > > > > > > > > if (!v4l2_dev) > > > > > > > > continue; > > > > > > same > > > > > > > asd = v4l2_async_find_match(notifier, sd); > > > > if (!asd) > > > > > > > > continue; > > > > > > > > ret = v4l2_async_match_notify(notifier, notifier->v4l2_dev, sd, > > > > > > > > asd); > > > > -- Regards, Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-12-01 11:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-11-24 1:00 notifier is skipped in some situations Jacob Chen
2017-11-24 8:55 ` Sakari Ailus
2017-11-24 9:03 ` Tomasz Figa
2017-11-24 9:17 ` Sakari Ailus
2017-11-24 9:19 ` Tomasz Figa
[not found] ` <1725377.6lDSOU2C5Q@macbookair>
[not found] ` <7578236.BQvekhbvUq@macbookair>
2017-11-29 12:29 ` Sakari Ailus
[not found] ` <8641274.XBun1tTRXh@macbookair>
2017-12-01 11:17 ` Sakari Ailus
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).