On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 05:35:23PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:28:57 +0100 > jacopo mondi <jacopo@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > 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 For a few of them (mt9m001, ov5642) there are cheap modules available online. The others ones have public documentation. I know they are old and dusty, supporting only parallel video interface. > > Ok. So, what about keeping just those 5 drivers at staging? If, after an > year, people won't do conversions, we can just drop them. > Let's see what Sakari and Hans think. Again, I'm fine with both ways ;) Thanks j > In any case, if we're ripping off soc_camera from the main tree, > moving to staging, no dependencies for soc_camera.h should be > kept at main tree. If any driver requires it, it should also be > moved to staging. > > Thanks, > Mauro
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
