On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:10:06 +0100 (CET) Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Antonio Ospite wrote: > > > pxa_camera init() is going to be removed. > > My nitpick here would be - I would put it the other way round. We do not > remove .init() in platforms, because it is going to be removed, but rather > we perform initialisation statically, because we think this is better so, > and then .init becomes useless and gets removed. > TBH, I am persuaded that the current use of init() is ambiguous /per se/ and so we'd just better not use it at all. If static initialization for sensor GPIOs is better, well I just trust you on that. However, the point here is not about static/dynamic initialization, it is more about pxa_camera init() used one time to configure MFP pins, and another time to request resources for the *sensor*, and in both cases (mis)used as it was going to be called at _module_init_ time only, which it wasn't. So, can you see why I consider these changes (patches 1 and 2) as merely functional to the removal of init() from pxa_camera? Anyhow, if you don't like references to a future change without an explanation I can arrange something in commit messages for the first two patches :) Regards, Antonio -- Antonio Ospite http://ao2.it PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001 A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Attachment:
pgpxgMZiClseX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
