Hi Ezequiel, Thank you for the review. On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 3:01 AM Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Adding Niklas and Jacopo, > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 12:33 PM Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Prabhakar, > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:19 AM Lad, Prabhakar > > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Should this be a device tree property instead? > > > I did give a thought about it, but making this as DT property would > > > make it more stiff. > > > > In case a system has two OV5645 and we want to operate each OV5645 > > with a different virtual channel, it will not be possible with the > > module_param approach. > > > > Using a device tree property would make it possible though, so I think > > it makes more sense to use a device tree property for this. > > > > As often happens, driver parameter is probably the easiest and less > invasive way to customize a driver, so I can imagine myself carrying > something like this downstream if needed. Haven't we all? > > It's definitely not suitable upstream, as Fabio points out, but > I don't think a devicetree approach is either. > Agreed. I was suggesting maybe v4l2-ctl instead ? > It seems Niklas and Jacopo have been working on adding > proper support to route this, via some new ioctls. > > https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/55300/ > > Not sure what's the status of it. > something similar needs to be implemented for ov5645 driver. Cheers, --Prabhakar > Hope it helps, > Ezequiel
