Hi Laurent, Guennadi, Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2014, 16:44 +0200 schrieb Laurent Pinchart: > 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. > > > > > 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. What steps would need to be taken to make soc_camera work with the non-soc_camera drivers in drivers/media/i2c? I don't have any soc_camera platform at hand, although I could try to revive a PXA270 board. > > 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 ? Yes, i.MX6. > > > 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
