On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:07:24PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi Sascha
>
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>
> > Hi Guennadi,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 05:40:22PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > +
> > > +static bool match_i2c(struct device *dev, struct v4l2_async_hw_info *hw_dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct i2c_client *client = i2c_verify_client(dev);
> > > + return client &&
> > > + hw_dev->bus_type == V4L2_ASYNC_BUS_I2C &&
> > > + hw_dev->match.i2c.adapter_id == client->adapter->nr &&
> > > + hw_dev->match.i2c.address == client->addr;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static bool match_platform(struct device *dev, struct v4l2_async_hw_info *hw_dev)
> > > +{
> > > + return hw_dev->bus_type == V4L2_ASYNC_BUS_PLATFORM &&
> > > + !strcmp(hw_dev->match.platform.name, dev_name(dev));
> > > +}
> >
> > I recently solved the same problem without being aware of your series.
> >
> > How about registering the asynchronous subdevices with a 'void *key'
> > instead of a bus specific matching function?
>
> Personally I don't think adding dummy data is a good idea. You can of
> course use pointers to real data, even just to the device object itself.
> But I really was trying to unbind host and subdevice devices, similar how
> clocks or pinmux entries or regulators are matched to their users. In the
> DT case we already use phandles to bind entities / pads / in whatever
> terms you prefer to think;-)
Do you have some preview patches for doing asynchronous subdevice
registration with devicetree? I mean this series and the v4l2 of parser
patches are not enough for the whole picture, right?
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
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
