On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote:
> >
> >). I started by converting mx3-camera and mt9t031, and I shall upload an
> >incomplete patch, converting only these drivers to my "testing" area,
> >while I shall start converting the rest of the drivers... So, it is
> >advisable to wait for that patch to appear and base any future (including
> >this one) work on it, because it is a pretty big change and merging would
> >be non-trivial.
> >
> I thought you wanted to offload some of the migration work and I had
> volunteered to do this since it is of interest to vpfe-capture.
Yes, but these are two unrelated (at least in theory) changes: fixing
cropping / scaling behaviour of _all_ aoc-camera drivers and the
soc-camera framework core, and removing the remaining bonds between
subdevice drivers and the soc-camera framework and replacing it properly
with v4l2-subdev API.
I thought you would be doing the latter part - v4l2-subdev conversion.
Which is good. But, you wrote:
> This patch migrates mt9t031 driver from SOC Camera interface to
> sub device interface. This is sent to get a feedback about the
> changes done since I am not sure if some of the functionality
> that is removed works okay with SOC Camera bridge driver or
> not. Following functions are to be discussed and added as needed:-
which I understand like you probably have broken soc-camera functionality
of this driver, which I cannot accept. Yes, I want to move forward to
v4l2-subdev, but - we cannot introduce regressions!
> I don't see a point in duplicating the work already done by me.
I don't like duplicating work either, and I don't think we're doing that.
As I said, what I am doing at the moment is fixing all soc-camera drivers
for proper cropping / scaling. In principle I welcome your help with the
v4l2-subdev migration, but currently it conflicts with my above work, and
it introduces a regression.
> So could you
> please work with me by reviewing this patch and then use this for your
> work? I will take care of merging any updates to this based on your
> patches (like the crop one)
Unfortunately, I do not think I'll be able to review your patch today,
will have to wait until the next week, sorry.
> >> > >> {
> >> > >> - s32 data = i2c_smbus_read_word_data(client, reg);
> >> > >> + s32 data;
> >> > >> +
> >> > >> + data = i2c_smbus_read_word_data(client, reg);
> >> > >> return data < 0 ? data : swab16(data);
> >
> >Looks like it will take me considerable time to review the patch and NAK
> >all changes like this one...
> >
> I didn't get it. Are you referring to the 3 lines of code above? For
> this patch this code change is unnecessary, but I have to do this if sd
> is used as argument to this function as suggested by Hans.
Exactly. It is _not_ needed for this patch. Only if we _do_ accept Hans'
suggestion to use the subdev pointer all the way down to register-access
functions, _then_ you might need to modify this code.
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
