On 06/26/2018 11:21 PM, Steve Longerbeam wrote: > Hello Helmut, > > > On 06/22/2018 12:51 AM, Helmut Grohne wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I found it strange that the macros V4L2_CID_USER_MAX217X_BASE and >> V4L2_CID_USER_IMX_BASE have equal value even though each of them state >> that they reserved a range. Those reservations look conflicting to me. > > Yes, they conflict. > >> The macro V4L2_CID_USER_MAX217X_BASE came first, > > No, imx came first. e1302912 ("media: Add i.MX media core driver") > is dated June 10, 2017. 8d67ae25 ("media: v4l2-ctrls: Reserve controls for > MAX217X") is dated two days later. > >> and >> V4L2_CID_USER_IMX_BASE was introduced in e130291212df ("media: Add i.MX >> media core driver") with the conflicting assignment (not a merge error). >> The authors of that patch mostly make up the recipient list. > > There were 8 revisions of the imx-media driver posted. In all of > those postings, V4L2_CID_USER_MAX217X_BASE did not exist yet. > So it looks like 8d67ae25 was merged at the same time as e1302912 > but the conflict went unnoticed. > > Steve >
Since imx is staging I propose that the IMX base is modified. Steve, can you make a patch for this changing 0x1090 to 0x10b0? Regards, Hans