On 05/03/2015 07:45 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Sun, 3 May 2015, Hans Verkuil wrote: > >> Hi Guennadi, >> >> On 05/03/2015 06:11 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Just a quick opinion poll - where and how should the soc-camera framework >>> and drivers be heading? Possible (probably not all) directions: >>> >>> (1) all is good, keep as is. That means keep all drivers, killing them off >>> only when it becomes very obvious, that noone wants them, keep developing >>> drivers, that are still being used and updating all of them on any API >>> updates. Keep me as maintainer, which means slow patch processing rate and >>> no active participation in new developments - at hardware, soc-camera or >>> V4L levels. >>> >>> (2) we want more! I.e. some contributors are planning to either add new >>> drivers to it or significantly develop existing ones, see significant >>> benefit in it. In this case it might become necessary to replace me with >>> someone, who can be more active in this area. >>> >>> (3) slowly phase out. Try to either deprecate and remove soc-camera >>> drivers one by one or move them out to become independent V4L2 host or >>> subdevice drivers, but keep updating while still there. >>> >>> (4) basically as (3) but even more aggressively - get rid of it ASAP:) >>> >>> Opinions? Expecially would be interesting to hear from respective >>> host-driver maintainers / developers, sorry, not adding CCs, they probably >>> read the list anyway:) >> >> I'm closest to 1. I would certainly not use it for new drivers, I see no >> reason to do that anymore. The core frameworks are quite good these days >> and I think the need for soc-camera has basically disappeared. But there >> is no need to phase out or remove soc-camera drivers (unless they are >> clearly broken and nobody will fix them). And if someone wants to turn >> a soc-camera driver into a standalone driver, then I would encourage >> that. > > Understand, thanks. > >> However, there are two things that need work fairly soon: >> >> 1) the dependency of subdev drivers on soc_camera: that has to go. I plan >> to work on that, but the first step is to replace the video crop ops by >> the pad selection ops. I finally got my Renesas sh7724 board up and running, > > Uhm... Does anyone really still care about V4L on SuperH?.. I am :-) It's the only soc-camera board I have, so it's good to have it working. > >> so I hope to make progress on this soon. I'll update soc-camera as well >> to conform to v4l2-compliance. Once that's done I will investigate how to >> remove the soc-camera dependency. >> >> The soc-camera dependency kills the reusability of those drivers and it >> really needs to be addressed. >> >> 2) Converting soc-camera videobuf drivers to vb2. At some point vb1 will be >> removed, so any remaining vb1 driver will likely be killed off if nobody does >> the conversion. I believe it is only omap1 and pxa that still use videobuf. >> >> I think omap1 might be a candidate for removal, but I don't know about the pxa. >> Guennadi, what is the status of these drivers? > > Dont know, sorry. PXA in general seems to still be quite actively > maintained - I recently saw a patch series for PXA CCF support, so, > probably V4L is still in use too. > >> If I would do a vb2 conversion >> for the pxa, would you be able to test it? > > I have a board with PXA270, and it still seems to be in the mainline, but > I don't know how easy it would be to get it running with a current kernel. Can you take a look? If you can get it running, then I can make a patch for you to try. But I don't want to put time into that unless I know you can test it. I think it is reasonable to phase out the omap1 driver: move it to staging first and if nobody complains remove it altogether. Regards, Hans -- 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
