+ * struct mx1_camera_pdata - i.MX1/i.MXL camera platform data + * @init: Init board resources + * @exit: Release board resources + * @mclk_10khz: master clock frequency in 10kHz units + * @flags: MX1 camera platform flags + */ +struct mx1_camera_pdata { + int (*init)(struct device *); + int (*exit)(struct device *);I thought the agreement was to avoid these .init() and .exit() hooks in new code...
Should I config board statically during system start-up?
+static void mx1_videobuf_queue(struct videobuf_queue *vq, + struct videobuf_buffer *vb) +{ + struct soc_camera_device *icd = vq->priv_data; + struct soc_camera_host *ici = to_soc_camera_host(icd->dev.parent); + struct mx1_camera_dev *pcdev = ici->priv; + struct mx1_buffer *buf = container_of(vb, struct mx1_buffer, vb); + + dev_dbg(&icd->dev, "%s (vb=0x%p) 0x%08lx %d\n", __func__, + vb, vb->baddr, vb->bsize); + + list_add_tail(&vb->queue, &pcdev->capture);No, you had a spinlock here and in DMA ISR in the previous version, and it was correct. Without that lock the above list_add races with list_del_init() in mx1_camera_wakeup().
what can save and help for the spinlock on single-core system? mx3 there does not have spinlock.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
