Hi Mauro, On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 09:14:09AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Tue, 30 Oct 2018 01:21:34 +0200 > Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > The SoC camera framework has been obsolete for some time and it is no > > longer functional. A few drivers have been converted to the V4L2 > > sub-device API but for the rest the conversion has not taken place yet. > > > > In order to keep the tree clean and to avoid keep maintaining > > non-functional and obsolete code, remove the SoC camera framework as well > > as the drivers that depend on it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Resending, this time with git format-patch -D . > > > > MAINTAINERS | 8 - > > drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig | 8 - > > drivers/media/i2c/Makefile | 1 - > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/Kconfig | 66 - > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/Makefile | 10 - > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov9640.h | 208 -- > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_mt9m001.c | 757 ------- > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_mt9t112.c | 1157 ----------- > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_mt9v022.c | 1012 --------- > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov5642.c | 1087 ---------- > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov772x.c | 1123 ---------- > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov9640.c | 738 ------- > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov9740.c | 996 --------- > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_rj54n1cb0c.c | 1415 ------------- > > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_tw9910.c | 999 --------- > > I don't see why we should remove those. I mean, Jacopo is > actually converting those drivers to not depend on soc_camera, > and it is a way better to review those patches with the old > code in place. I have converted a few drivers used by some SH boards where I dropped dependencies on soc_camera, not to remove camera support from those. For others I don't have cameras to test with, nor I know about boards in mainline using them. From my side, driver conversion is done. > > So, at least while Jacopo is keep doing this work, I would keep > at Kernel tree, as it helps to see a diff when the driver changes > when getting rid of soc_camera dependencies. > > So, IMO, the best would be to move those to /staging, eventually > depending on BROKEN. However, somebody with a (rather old) development setup using those camera sensor may wants to see if mainline supports them. We actually had a few patches coming lately (for ov. I understand Sakari's argument that those could be retrieved from git history, but a few people will notice imo. I also understand the additional maintainership burden of keeping them around, so I'm fine with either ways ;) This is a list of the current situation in mainline, to have a better idea: $for i in `seq 1 9`; do CAM=$(head -n $i /tmp/soc_cams | tail -n 1); echo $CAM; find drivers/media/ -name $CAM; done t9m001.c drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9m001.c mt9t112.c drivers/media/i2c/mt9t112.c drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9t112.c mt9v022.c drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9v022.c ov5642.c drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov5642.c ov772x.c drivers/media/i2c/ov772x.c drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov772x.c ov9640.c drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov9640.c ov9740.c drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov9740.c rj54n1cb0c.c drivers/media/i2c/rj54n1cb0c.c drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/rj54n1cb0c.c tw9910.c drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/tw9910.c So it seems to me only the following sensor do not have a non-soc_camera driver at the moment: mt9m001.c mt9v022.c ov5642.c ov9640.c ov9740.c Thanks j > > Thanks, > Mauro
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
