Hi Philipp, On Wednesday 28 May 2014 16:36:55 Philipp Zabel wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2014, 13:04 +0200 schrieb Laurent Pinchart: > > 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). If you had submitted an entirely new driver for a sensor already supported by an soc-camera sensor driver, I would have told you to fix the problem on soc- camera side. As you're only expanding hardware support for an existing driver, it's hard to nack your patch in all fairness :-) I will thus not veto option 2, even though I would prefer if we fixed the problem once and for all. This doesn't mean others will accept the option though. > > > 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. Which host would that be, if you can tell ? > > 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, 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
