Hi Zhi, Also - Cc: Dongchun Zhu <dongchun.zhu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> who is listed as the DW9768 VCM driver author... Quoting Zhi Mao (毛智) (2024-06-12 12:13:40) > Hi Angelo, > > Thanks for your review. > > On Wed, 2024-06-12 at 09:07 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > > Il 12/06/24 03:20, Zhi Mao ha scritto: > > > Add a V4L2 sub-device driver for Giantec GT97xx VCM. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhi Mao <zhi.mao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hello Zhi, > > > > I fail to see why would you need to upstream this new driver instead > > of > > simply adding the IC_INFO_REG to the already existing (and more > > featureful) > > dw9768 driver, which also seems to support the Giantec GT9769 VCM. Even more so especially as https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/media/i2c/dw9768.c already directly supports the compatible strings added by this driver - surely we don't want multiple (near identical) drivers matching the same compatible string? > > > > Our project uses Giantec VCM hardware. > For detailed vendor information, please visit: ( > https://en.giantec-semi.com/yqmd/164). > The VCM datasheet we are referencing is provided by Giantec. > Currently, the relationship between Giantec VCM and Dongwoon VCM is > unclear, but Dongwoon seems to be another manufacturer of VCM > hardware. > > From the perspective of software driver development and maintenance, it > makes sense for each vendor's hardware should have its own software > driver. Personally, I don't think so. If two vendors make identical parts, we shouldn't have two identical drivers. I still have plans to refactor VCM drivers if I get some spare-time(tm) as almost each driver does the same identical task. They're all just copies of the boilerplate. That seems like something we should reduce, not increase. -- Kieran > So, I upstream a new VCM driver for Giantec. > > > Cheers, > > Angelo
