On 12/06/18 00:13, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
>
>
> On 12/5/18 10:50 AM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> On 12/05/2018 02:20 AM, Steve Longerbeam wrote:
>>> Hi Hans, Philipp,
>>>
>>> One comment on my side...
>>>
>>> On 12/3/18 7:21 AM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> +void imx_media_mem2mem_device_unregister(struct imx_media_video_dev *vdev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct mem2mem_priv *priv = to_mem2mem_priv(vdev);
>>>>> + struct video_device *vfd = priv->vdev.vfd;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mutex_lock(&priv->mutex);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (video_is_registered(vfd)) {
>>>>> + video_unregister_device(vfd);
>>>>> + media_entity_cleanup(&vfd->entity);
>>>> Is this needed?
>>>>
>>>> If this is to be part of the media controller, then I expect to see a call
>>>> to v4l2_m2m_register_media_controller() somewhere.
>>>>
>>> Yes, I agree there should be a call to
>>> v4l2_m2m_register_media_controller(). This driver does not connect with
>>> any of the imx-media entities, but calling it will at least make the
>>> mem2mem output/capture device entities (and processing entity) visible
>>> in the media graph.
>>>
>>> Philipp, can you pick/squash the following from my media-tree github fork?
>>>
>>> 6fa05f5170 ("media: imx: mem2mem: Add missing media-device header")
>>> d355bf8b15 ("media: imx: Add missing unregister and remove of mem2mem
>>> device")
>>> 6787a50cdc ("media: imx: mem2mem: Register with media control")
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>> Why is this driver part of the imx driver? Since it doesn't connect with
>> any of the imx-media entities, doesn't that mean that this is really a
>> stand-alone driver?
>
> It is basically a stand-alone m2m driver, but it makes use of some
> imx-media utility functions like imx_media_enum_format(). Also making it
> a true stand-alone driver would require creating a second /dev/mediaN
> device.
If it is standalone, is it reused in newer iMX versions? (7 or 8)
And if it is just a regular m2m device, then it doesn't need to create a
media device either (doesn't hurt, but it is not required).
Regards,
Hans
>
> Steve
>
