>-----Original Message----- >From: Guennadi Liakhovetski [mailto:g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx] >Sent: Sunday, 30 September, 2012 07:31 >To: Jonathan Corbet >Cc: Albert Wang; linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Libin Yang >Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] [media] marvell-ccic: core: add soc camera support on >marvell-ccic mcam-core > >On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:47:20 +0800 >> Albert Wang <twang13@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > This patch adds the support of Soc Camera on marvell-ccic mcam-core. >> > The Soc Camera mode does not compatible with current mode. >> > Only one mode can be used at one time. >> > >> > To use Soc Camera, CONFIG_VIDEO_MMP_SOC_CAMERA should be defined. >> > What's more, the platform driver should support Soc camera at the same time. >> > >> > Also add MIPI interface and dual CCICs support in Soc Camera mode. >> >> I'm glad this work is being done, but I have some high-level grumbles >> to start with. >> >> This patch is too big, and does several things. I think there needs to >> be one to add SOC support (but see below), one to add planar formats, >> one to add MIPI, one for the second CCIC, etc. That will make them all >> easier to review. >> >> The SOC camera stuff could maybe use a little more thought. Why does >> this driver *need* to be a SOC camera driver? > >It probably doesn't, but if the author wishes to do so - we can try to do this cleanly. > >> If that is truly >> necessary (or sufficiently beneficial), can we get to the point where >> that's the only mode? I really dislike the two modes; we're >> essentially perpetuating the two-drivers concept in a #ifdef'd form; >> it would be good not to do that. >> >> If there is truly some reason why both modes need to exist, can we >> arrange things so that the core doesn't know the difference? I'd like >> to see no new ifdefs there if possible, it already has way too many. > >A strong +1. Ideally we should identify common code, add soc-camera mode as a >separate file and re-use the common stuff. > OK, we will discuss this method. >> That, I think, is how I'd like to go toward a cleaner, more >> reviewable, more maintainable solution. Make sense? > >Definitely! > >Thanks >Guennadi > >> Thanks, >> >> jon >> > >--- >Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. >Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ Thanks Albert Wang 86-21-61092656 -- 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
