Hi Hans, Thanks for the review. On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri May 31 2013 15:03:23 Arun Kumar K wrote: >> FIMC-IS uses certain sensors which are exclusively controlled >> from the IS firmware. This patch adds the sensor subdev for the >> fimc-is sensors. >> >> Signed-off-by: Arun Kumar K <arun.kk@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Kilyeon Im <kilyeon.im@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Not surprisingly I really hate the idea of sensor drivers that are tied to > a specific SoC, since it completely destroys the reusability of such drivers. > Yes agree to it. > I understand that you have little choice to do something special here, but > I was wondering whether there is a way of keeping things as generic as > possible. > > I'm just brainstorming here, but as far as I can see this driver is basically > a partial sensor driver: it handles the clock, the format negotiation and > power management. Any sensor driver needs that. > > What would be nice is if the fmic specific parts are replaced by callbacks > into the bridge driver using v4l2_subdev_notify(). > > The platform data (or DT) can also state if this sensor is firmware controlled > or not. If not, then the missing bits can be implemented in the future by > someone who needs that. > > That way the driver itself remains independent from fimc. > > And existing sensor drivers can be adapted to be usable with fimc as well by > adding support for the notify callback. > > Would a scheme along those lines work? > Yes this should make the implementation very generic. Will check the feasibility of this approach. Thanks & Regards Arun -- 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
