Hi Sylwester, On Tuesday 08 January 2013 15:52:21 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > On 01/08/2013 09:10 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> +/* > >> + * If subdevice probing fails any time after v4l2_async_subdev_bind(), > >> + * no clean up must be called. This function is only a message of > >> + * intention. > >> + */ > >> +int v4l2_async_subdev_bind(struct v4l2_async_subdev_list *asdl); > >> +int v4l2_async_subdev_bound(struct v4l2_async_subdev_list *asdl); > > > > Could you please explain why you need both a bind notifier and a bound > > notifier ? I was expecting a single v4l2_async_subdev_register() call in > > subdev drivers (and, thinking about it, I would probably name it > > v4l2_subdev_register()). > > I expected it to be done this way too, and I also used > v4l2_subdev_register() name in my early version of the subdev registration > code where subdevs were registering themselves to the v4l2 core. I think we can switch back to v4l2_subdev_register() if we can solve the clock name issue. This doesn't seem impossible at first sight. > BTW, this might not be most important thing here, but do we need separate > file, i.e. v4l2-async.c, instead of for example putting it in v4l2-device.c > ? I'm fine with both, but I tend to try and keep source files not too large for ease of reading. Depending on the amount of code we end up adding, moving the functions to v4l2-device.c might be a good idea. > >> +void v4l2_async_subdev_unbind(struct v4l2_async_subdev_list *asdl); > >> +#endif -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
