On 10/30/2018 10:17 PM, jacopo mondi wrote: > 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 > ;) My preference is to just remove them. But moving them to staging under CONFIG_BROKEN for a year is OK with me, but frankly I don't see the point. Regards, Hans
