On 10/30/2018 10:17 PM, jacopo mondi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 05:35:23PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Em Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:28:57 +0100
>> jacopo mondi <jac...@jmondi.org> escreveu:
>>
>>> Hi Mauro,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 09:14:09AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>> Em Tue, 30 Oct 2018 01:21:34 +0200
>>>> Sakari Ailus <sakari.ai...@linux.intel.com> escreveu:
>>>>
>>>>> The SoC camera framework has been obsolete for some time and it is no
>>>>> longer functional. A few drivers have been converted to the V4L2
>>>>> sub-device API but for the rest the conversion has not taken place yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to keep the tree clean and to avoid keep maintaining
>>>>> non-functional and obsolete code, remove the SoC camera framework as well
>>>>> as the drivers that depend on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ai...@linux.intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Resending, this time with git format-patch -D .
>>>>>
>>>>> MAINTAINERS | 8 -
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig | 8 -
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/Makefile | 1 -
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/Kconfig | 66 -
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/Makefile | 10 -
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov9640.h | 208 --
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_mt9m001.c | 757 -------
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_mt9t112.c | 1157 -----------
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_mt9v022.c | 1012 ---------
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov5642.c | 1087 ----------
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov772x.c | 1123 ----------
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov9640.c | 738 -------
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov9740.c | 996 ---------
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_rj54n1cb0c.c | 1415 -------------
>>>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_tw9910.c | 999 ---------
>>>>
>>>> I don't see why we should remove those. I mean, Jacopo is
>>>> actually converting those drivers to not depend on soc_camera,
>>>> and it is a way better to review those patches with the old
>>>> code in place.
>>>
>>> I have converted a few drivers used by some SH boards where I dropped
>>> dependencies on soc_camera, not to remove camera support from those. For
>>> others I don't have cameras to test with, nor I know about boards in
>>> mainline using them.
>>>
>>> From my side, driver conversion is done.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, at least while Jacopo is keep doing this work, I would keep
>>>> at Kernel tree, as it helps to see a diff when the driver changes
>>>> when getting rid of soc_camera dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> So, IMO, the best would be to move those to /staging, eventually
>>>> depending on BROKEN.
>>>
>>> However, somebody with a (rather old) development setup using those camera
>>> sensor may wants to see if mainline supports them. We actually had a
>>> few patches coming lately (for ov. I understand Sakari's argument that those
>>> could be retrieved from git history, but a few people will notice imo.
>>> I also understand the additional maintainership burden of keeping them
>>> around, so I'm fine with either ways ;)
>>>
>>> This is a list of the current situation in mainline, to have a better
>>> idea:
>>>
>>> $for i in `seq 1 9`; do CAM=$(head -n $i /tmp/soc_cams | tail -n 1); echo
>>> $CAM; find drivers/media/ -name $CAM; done
>>> t9m001.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9m001.c
>>> mt9t112.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/mt9t112.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9t112.c
>>> mt9v022.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9v022.c
>>> ov5642.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov5642.c
>>> ov772x.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/ov772x.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov772x.c
>>> ov9640.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov9640.c
>>> ov9740.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov9740.c
>>> rj54n1cb0c.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/rj54n1cb0c.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/rj54n1cb0c.c
>>> tw9910.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
>>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/tw9910.c
>>>
>>> So it seems to me only the following sensor do not have a
>>> non-soc_camera driver at the moment:
>>>
>>> mt9m001.c
>>> mt9v022.c
>>> ov5642.c
>>> ov9640.c
>>> ov9740.c
>
> For a few of them (mt9m001, ov5642) there are cheap modules available
> online. The others ones have public documentation. I know they are old
> and dusty, supporting only parallel video interface.
>
>>
>> Ok. So, what about keeping just those 5 drivers at staging? If, after an
>> year, people won't do conversions, we can just drop them.
>>
>
> Let's see what Sakari and Hans think. Again, I'm fine with both ways
> ;)
My preference is to just remove them. But moving them to staging under
CONFIG_BROKEN for a year is OK with me, but frankly I don't see the point.
Regards,
Hans
