On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Josh Wu wrote: [snip] > > And until omap1 is in the mainline we cannot drop v4l2_clk. s/until/as lonh as/ > So I think the better way right now for ov2640 driver is still request both > the v4l2_clock: mclk, and the clock: xvclk in probe(). > In that way, we can take our time to introduce other patches to merged these > two clocks. > Does it make sense? How about this sequence, that we cat still try to get in on time for the next merge window: 1. stop using the clock name in v4l2_clk 2. add support for CCF to v4l2_clk, falling back to current behaviour if no clock is found 3. switch ov2640 to using "xvclk" Otherwise I would propose to add asynchronous probing support to ov2640 _without_ changing the clock name. Whether or not we changee clock's name isn't related directly to async support, since the driver already is using v4l2_clk with the standarf "wrong" name. So, I would consider these two changes separately - one is a new feature, another is a fix. The only question is in which order to apply them. In general fix-first is preferred, but since in this case the fix requires framework changes, we could go with feature-first. This also makes sense since features need to catch a merge window, whereas a fix can go in later too. So, if we don't manage the above 3-step plan, I would priposw the most primitive patch ro ov2640 just adding async support in line wuth other drivers and without changing the clock name at first. Thanks Guennadi -- 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
