Re: camera subdevice support was Re: [PATCH 1/4] v4l2: device_register_subdev_nodes: allow calling multiple times

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2214 bytes --]

Ahoj! :-)

> > > > Ok, I got the camera sensor to work. No subdevices support, so I don't
> > > > have focus (etc) working, but that's a start. I also had to remove
> > > > video-bus-switch support; but I guess it will be easier to use
> > > > video-multiplexer patches... 
> > > > 
> > > > I'll have patches over weekend.
> > > 
> > > I briefly looked at what's there --- you do miss the video nodes for the
> > > non-sensor sub-devices, and they also don't show up in the media graph,
> > > right?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > I guess they don't end up matching in the async list.
> > 
> > How should they get to the async list?
> 
> The patch you referred to does that. The problem is, it does make the bus
> configuration a pointer as well. There should be two patches. That's not a
> lot of work to separate them though. But it should be done.

Well... This is the line I'm fighting with:

+ of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "ti,camera-flashes",
+							flash++)

If someone told me its fwnode equivalent, I might be able to get it to
work. Knowing what group_id is and if I could ignore it would help a
bit, too :-).

(Also, I'll be glad to test patches :-))

> > > I think we need to make the non-sensor sub-device support more generic;
> > > it's not just the OMAP 3 ISP that needs it. I think we need to document
> > > the property for the flash phandle as well; I can write one, or refresh
> > > an existing one that I believe already exists.
> > > 
> > > How about calling it either simply "flash" or "camera-flash"? Similarly
> > > for lens: "lens" or "camera-lens". I have a vague feeling the "camera-"
> > > prefix is somewhat redundant, so I'd just go for "flash" or "lens".
> > 
> > Actually, I'd go for "flash" and "focus-coil". There may be other
> > lens properties, such as zoom, mirror movement, lens identification,
> > ...
> 
> Good point. Still there may be other ways to move the lens than the voice
> coil (which sure is cheap), so how about "flash" and "lens-focus"?

Sounds good to me.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]