[Was: eMPIA EM2710 Webcam (em28xx) and LIRC] Continue this part of the discussion in a new thread... Am 15.03.2012 14:05, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab: > Em 15-03-2012 09:34, Frank Schäfer escreveu: >> ... >> >> I would like to bring up the question, if it wouldn't make sense to move >> support for the em27xx/28xx webcams to a separate gspca-subdriver. > The em2710/2750 chips are very similar to em2820. There's not much sense > on moving it elsewhere, as it would duplicate a lot of the existing code, > for no good reason. Yes, that was my first thought, too. But looking at the resulting gspca subdriver, you will see that there is not much code duplication. I would say that adding support for this device as a gspca subdriver requires less new lines of code than extending/modifying the em28xx driver. >> I'm currently working on adding support for the VAD Laplace webcam >> (em2765 + OV2640) (http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/VAD_Laplace). >> Lots of modifications to the em28xx driver would be necessary to support >> this device because of some significant differences: >> - supports only bulk transfers > em28xx supports it as well, but it is used only for dvb, currently. You are talking about the em28xx device capabilities, right ? AFAIK, the em28xx driver still has no bulk transfer support. >> - uses proprietary I2C-writes > huh? I2C writes are proprietary. What do you mean? Maybe proprietary is not the best name... Requests 0x06 an 0x08 are used for the usb control messages. I have documented that at http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/VAD_Laplace. Could be the "vendor specific" usb requests the datasheet talks about. >> - em25xx-eeprom > Are you meaning more than 256 addresses eeprom? Newer Empia chips use it, > not only the webcam ones. Currently, the code detects it but nobody wrote > an implementation for it yet. It would likely make sense to implement it > at em28xx anyway. Yes, the device has an eeprom with 16bit addresses. Anyway, I'm talking about a different format of the eeprom data: http://wenku.baidu.com/view/a21a28eab8f67c1cfad6b8f6.html You can find the eeprom content of my device at http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/VAD_Laplace >> - ov2640 sensor > The better is to use a separate I2C driver for the sensor. This is not > a common practice at gspca, but doing that would help to re-use the sensor > driver elsewhere. I agree. But let's do things step by step... >> Lots of changes concerning the USB-interface probing, button handling, >> video controls, frame processing and more would be necessary, too. > Video controls are implemented at the sensor sub-driver, so this is not > an issue. > > Anyway, if em2765 is different enough from em2874 and em2750, then it makes > sense to write it as a separate driver. Otherwise, it is better to add support > for it there. No, the em2765 itself seems to be very similar to the other em27xx/em28xx chips. But the device as a whole is different enough to consider a separate driver. >> For reverse engineering purposes, I decided to write a gspca subdriver >> for this device (will send a patch for testing/discussion soon). > Ok. See the patch posted a minute ago. > >> I have no strong opinion about this, but I somehow feel that the em28xx >> driver gets bloated more and more... > The advantage of adding it there is that it generally reduces maintenance > efforts, as the same code and fixes don't need to be added on two separate > places. Yes, that's right. But on the other hand, the benefit of separate drivers is simpler code, which is easier to maintain/understand. For example, there would be no LIRC modules issue ;-) > For example, if the em2765 eeprom access is similar to em2874, the same > code chunk would be required on both drivers. Sure, code duplication is one of the disadvantages. The question is how much duplicate code there would be. Regards, Frank > Regards, > Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
