+ * struct mx1_camera_pdata - i.MX1/i.MXL camera platform data
+ * @init: Init board resources
+ * @exit: Release board resources
+ * @mclk_10khz: master clock frequency in 10kHz units
+ * @flags: MX1 camera platform flags
+ */
+struct mx1_camera_pdata {
+ int (*init)(struct device *);
+ int (*exit)(struct device *);
I thought the agreement was to avoid these .init() and .exit() hooks in
new code...
Should I config board statically during system start-up?
+static void mx1_videobuf_queue(struct videobuf_queue *vq,
+ struct videobuf_buffer *vb)
+{
+ struct soc_camera_device *icd = vq->priv_data;
+ struct soc_camera_host *ici = to_soc_camera_host(icd->dev.parent);
+ struct mx1_camera_dev *pcdev = ici->priv;
+ struct mx1_buffer *buf = container_of(vb, struct mx1_buffer, vb);
+
+ dev_dbg(&icd->dev, "%s (vb=0x%p) 0x%08lx %d\n", __func__,
+ vb, vb->baddr, vb->bsize);
+
+ list_add_tail(&vb->queue, &pcdev->capture);
No, you had a spinlock here and in DMA ISR in the previous version, and it
was correct. Without that lock the above list_add races with
list_del_init() in mx1_camera_wakeup().
what can save and help for the spinlock on single-core system? mx3 there
does not have spinlock.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html