Hi Jacopo, On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 03:13:28PM +0200, jacopo mondi wrote: > Hi Mauro, Hans, Sakari, > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 03:58:51PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Hi Hans, Mauro, > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 02:39:27PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > On 10/19/18 14:31, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > Em Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:45:32 +0200 > > > > Hans Verkuil <hansverk@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > > > >> On 10/19/18 13:43, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > >>> Those drivers are part of the legacy SoC camera framework. > > > >>> They're being converted to not use it, but sometimes we're > > > >>> keeping both legacy any new driver. > > > >>> > > > >>> This time, for example, we have two drivers on media with > > > >>> the same name: ov772x. That's bad. > > > >>> > > > >>> So, in order to prevent that to happen, let's prepend the SoC > > > >>> legacy drivers with soc_. > > > >>> > > > >>> No functional changes. > > > >>> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> > > > >> Acked-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > For now, let's just avoid the conflict if one builds both modules and > > > > do a modprobe ov772x. > > > > > > > >> Let's kill all of these in the next kernel. I see no reason for keeping > > > >> them around. > > > > > > > > While people are doing those SoC conversions, I would keep it. We > > > > > > Which people are doing SoC conversions? Nobody is using soc-camera anymore. > > > It is a dead driver. The only reason it hasn't been removed yet is lack of > > > time since it is not just removing the driver, but also patching old board > > > files that use soc_camera headers. Really left-overs since the corresponding > > > soc-camera drivers have long since been removed. > > > > > > > could move it to staging, to let it clear that those drivers require > > > > conversion, and give people some time to work on it. > > > > > > There is nobody working on it. These are old sensors, and few will have > > > the hardware to test it. If someone needs such a sensor driver, then they > > > can always look at an older kernel version. It's still in git after all. > > > > > > Just kill it rather then polluting the media tree. > > > > I remember at least Jacopo has been doing some. There was someone else as > > well, but I don't remember right now who it was. That said, I'm not sure if > > there's anything happening to the rest. > > Yes, I did port a few drivers and there are patches for others coming. > > [PATCH v2 0/4] media: soc_camera: ov9640: switch driver to v4l2_async > from Peter Cvek (now in Cc) > > > > Is there something that prevents removing these right away? As you said > > it's not functional and people can always check old versions if they want > > to port the driver to V4L2 sub-device framework. > > All dependencies should have been solved so far, but given that > someone might want to do the porting at some point, I don't see how > bad would it be to have them in staging, even if people could look > into the git history... The atomisp driver was removed on similar basis --- it was not functional and no-one was actively working on it. And there was lots of work to keep the codebase compiling (not as much the case with these drivers though). I think that decision regarding atomisp was a correct one, and I don't see much difference between that and these drivers. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
