Hi Guennadi, Laurent, Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2014, 13:04 +0200 schrieb Laurent Pinchart: > Hello, > > On Wednesday 28 May 2014 12:07:57 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Wed, 28 May 2014, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > > Am Dienstag, den 27.05.2014, 21:48 +0200 schrieb Guennadi Liakhovetski: > > > > On Mon, 26 May 2014, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > > > > From the looks of it, mt9v022 and mt9v032 are very similar, > > > > > as are mt9v024 and mt9v034. With minimal changes it is possible > > > > > to support mt9v02[24] with the same driver. > > > > > > > > Are you aware of drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9v022.c? > > > > > > Yes. Unfortunately this driver can't be used in a system without > > > soc_camera. It uses soc_camera helpers and doesn't implement pad ops > > > among others. > > > > As I mentioned many times, this compatibility is a matter of someone just > > needing and finally doing this. If you need this, please, extend the > > mt9v022 driver to also work with non soc-camera hosts, if you need any > > help - please feel free to ask, I can send you my conversion code, that > > I've done for ov772x, but never managed to finalise testing, > > unfortunately. > > > > > > With this patch you'd duplicate support for both mt9v022 and mt9v024, > > > > which doesn't look like a good idea to me. > > > > > > While this is true, given that the mt9v02x/3x sensors are so similar, > > > the support is already duplicated in all but name. > > > Would you suggest we should try to merge the mt9v032 and mt9v022 > > > drivers? > > > > Out of 3 options: > > > > 1. extend mt9v022 to work with non soc-camera hosts > > 2. extend mt9v032 to also support mt9v022 and mt9v024 > > 3. merge both mt9v022 and mt9v032 drivers > > > > option 2 seems the worst to me. It also is the easiest to achieve and the mt9v032 driver is prettier (as in doesn't have support for the external gpio bus shifter, which I don't think belongs in the sensor driver). > > I'm ok with either 1 or 3, whereas 3 is > > more difficult than 1. > > This topic has been discussed over and over. It indeed "just" requires someone > to do it, although it might be more complex than that sounds. > > We need to fix the infrastructure to make sensor drivers completely unaware of > soc-camera. This isn't about extending the mt9v022 driver to work with non > soc-camera hosts, it's about fixing soc-camera not to require any change to > sensor drivers. Philipp, if you have time to work on that, we can discuss what > needs to be done. I don't have a use case for soc_camera. Instead of trying to fix it to use generic sensor drivers, I'd rather use that time to prepare non-soc_camera capture host support. > On the sensor side, we should have a single driver for the mt9v022, 024 and > 032 sensors. I would vote for merging the two drivers into > drivers/media/i2c/mt9v032.c, as that one is closer to the goal of not being > soc-camera specific. regards Philipp -- 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
