26.04.2020 04:43, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет: ... >> It looks to me that at least all those hardcoded HW format IDs do not >> match the older SoCs. > > TPG hard coded formats are supported on prior Tegra. > > Other supported formats are SoC dependent and part of soc data in the > driver already. But I don't see where that SoC-dependent definition is made in terga210.c. That tegra_image_format enum looks T210-specific, isn't it? ... >> The driver will need to have a bit better separation if it's supposed to >> have a common core for all SoCs. Each incompatible VI/CSI hardware >> version should have its own kernel module. > > currently other Tegra host1x driver (drm) also does similar. Single > module for all Tegra SoCs. DRM driver has a proper separation of the sub-drivers where sub-driver won't load on unsupported hardware. The tegra-video driver should do the same, i.e. VI and CSI should be individual drivers (and not OPS). There could be a some common core, but for now it's not obvious to me what that core should be, maybe just the video.c. > With current tegra-video, all the v4l2 related common part of > implementation is same for all tegra's and only > tegra210.c/tegra186.c/tegra194.c will have corresponding tegra soc > specific vi/csi programming sequence. This code shouldn't be shared within the same driver module, IMO. >> The tegra-video should be okay, although the "video" part sounds a bit >> too broad since video could mean a lot of things. I think downstream >> kernel uses (or at least used) the tegra-camera name for the driver, >> perhaps it could be a reasonable variant as well. > prior feedback suggests not to use camera variant instead to use video Alright, then the tegra-video should be fine.
