On 06/26/2018 11:21 PM, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
> Hello Helmut,
>
>
> On 06/22/2018 12:51 AM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I found it strange that the macros V4L2_CID_USER_MAX217X_BASE and
>> V4L2_CID_USER_IMX_BASE have equal value even though each of them state
>> that they reserved a range. Those reservations look conflicting to me.
>
> Yes, they conflict.
>
>> The macro V4L2_CID_USER_MAX217X_BASE came first,
>
> No, imx came first. e1302912 ("media: Add i.MX media core driver")
> is dated June 10, 2017. 8d67ae25 ("media: v4l2-ctrls: Reserve controls for
> MAX217X") is dated two days later.
>
>> and
>> V4L2_CID_USER_IMX_BASE was introduced in e130291212df ("media: Add i.MX
>> media core driver") with the conflicting assignment (not a merge error).
>> The authors of that patch mostly make up the recipient list.
>
> There were 8 revisions of the imx-media driver posted. In all of
> those postings, V4L2_CID_USER_MAX217X_BASE did not exist yet.
> So it looks like 8d67ae25 was merged at the same time as e1302912
> but the conflict went unnoticed.
>
> Steve
>
Since imx is staging I propose that the IMX base is modified. Steve, can
you make a patch for this changing 0x1090 to 0x10b0?
Regards,
Hans
