Hello, On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 14:38:43 EEST Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 01:29:36PM +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 02:07:21PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 06:02:55PM +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote: [snip] > >>> Then we should probably also apply the following patch I submitted : > >>> > >>> "media: v4l2-common: v4l2_spi_subdev_init : generate unique name" > >>> > >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10553035/ > >>> > >>> and perhaps > >>> > >>> "media: v4l2-common: simplify v4l2_i2c_subdev_init name generation" > >>> > >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10553037/ > >> > >> The problem with this patch is that the existing naming scheme is very > >> similar while the new one offers no tangible benefits apart from being > >> in line with the rest of the kernel. That's still not a benefit for uAPI: > >> changing the name is certain to break user space applications. > > > > I agree with you on the patch for v4l2_i2c_subdev_init (I wrote > > 'perhaps'), but you don't say anything on the one about > > v4l2_spi_subdev_init :), which fixes an actual bug. I have 2 identical > > SPI-controlled sensors on the same board, and without my patch they get > > the same subdev name. Of course, I could fix that in the sensor driver > > itself, but that's not what we want, or do we ? > > Good point. I missed the naming of the SPI devices ignored any bus > information there. I'm rather inclined towards taking the SPI patch. Hans, > Mauro, Laurent; any opinion on that? I agree that the SPI patch makes sense, I think we should take it. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
