Re: [PATCH 1/6 v4] media: V4L2: support asynchronous subdevice registration

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Sylwester,

On Tuesday 08 January 2013 15:52:21 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 09:10 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> +/*
> >> + * If subdevice probing fails any time after v4l2_async_subdev_bind(),
> >> + * no clean up must be called. This function is only a message of
> >> + * intention.
> >> + */
> >> +int v4l2_async_subdev_bind(struct v4l2_async_subdev_list *asdl);
> >> +int v4l2_async_subdev_bound(struct v4l2_async_subdev_list *asdl);
> > 
> > Could you please explain why you need both a bind notifier and a bound
> > notifier ? I was expecting a single v4l2_async_subdev_register() call in
> > subdev drivers (and, thinking about it, I would probably name it
> > v4l2_subdev_register()).
> 
> I expected it to be done this way too, and I also used
> v4l2_subdev_register() name in my early version of the subdev registration
> code where subdevs were registering themselves to the v4l2 core.

I think we can switch back to v4l2_subdev_register() if we can solve the clock 
name issue. This doesn't seem impossible at first sight.

> BTW, this might not be most important thing here, but do we need separate
> file, i.e. v4l2-async.c, instead of for example putting it in v4l2-device.c
> ?

I'm fine with both, but I tend to try and keep source files not too large for 
ease of reading. Depending on the amount of code we end up adding, moving the 
functions to v4l2-device.c might be a good idea.

> >> +void v4l2_async_subdev_unbind(struct v4l2_async_subdev_list *asdl);
> >> +#endif

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart