[07:07] <LazyGrizzly> kbingham you there?
[07:09] <kbingham[m]> LazyGrizzly: Morning!
[07:11] <LazyGrizzly> aloha
[07:14] <LazyGrizzly> kbingham considering your latest input: I am unsure what behaviour uvc_ctrl_add_info should have.
[07:14] <LazyGrizzly> is it enough to set the flags like:
[07:14] <LazyGrizzly> 	flags = uvc_ctrl_get_flags(dev, ctrl, info);
[07:14] <LazyGrizzly> 	if (flags < 0)
[07:14] <LazyGrizzly> 		uvc_trace(UVC_TRACE_CONTROL,
[07:14] <LazyGrizzly> 			  "Failed to retrieve flags (%d).\n", ret);
[07:14] <LazyGrizzly> 	else
[07:14] <kbingham[m]> LazyGrizzly: how can I help?
[07:14] <LazyGrizzly> 		ctrl->info.flags = flags;
[07:14] <LazyGrizzly> or should there be a jump to done in an error case
[07:21] <kbingham[m]> LazyGrizzly: I can't look at the code at the moment I'm afraid, in my review I was highlighting potential error paths, that shouldn't be ignored. I'll have to leave it to you to look at how the functions are used, so you can decide how those error paths will affect things.
[07:22] <kbingham[m]> Is the function on a critical path, that should return an error all the way up to user space? Or is just a warning appropriate.
[07:24] <kbingham[m]> Depending on the context of the flags would help decide if you can leave an initial value in the but unless every use of the flags checks it I don't think letting an error number go in to the flags is appropriate
[07:28] <LazyGrizzly> kbingham[m]: ok. i'm just trying to find an end for harassing you with patches :) and since i am unsure what behaviour is expected i would rather leave it as it is to not change the ontrols except for trying to read the flags
[07:28] <LazyGrizzly> std controls and xu controls have different error handling that is why i am asking.
[07:28] <LazyGrizzly> both at least give warnings and ensure proper values with the next iteration
[07:29] <kbingham[m]> Aha just re read your code snippet above (sorry I'm on a small mobile device). That looks like it leaves the flags untouched unless the call is successful which seems better imo :-)
[07:31] <kbingham[m]> No worries about multiple iterations of patches! That's how patches get to mainline :-)
[09:47] *** benjiG has left 
[11:02] <sailus> Hello!
[11:03] <sailus> Oh, wait... it's not Friday yet.
[11:03] <sailus> What a pity.
[11:14] <Scotty_> hello anyone in here
[15:39] <lyakh> pinchartl: hi, sorry for being so pushy, but it's been 2.5 months since the last version of my UVC patches. Now it seems like we're running too close to missing the next merge window.
[15:41] <pinchartl> lyakh: I know
[20:17] *** BackEMF has left