Re: [RFC] Move some soc-camera drivers to staging in preparation for removal

[Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>]

On 02/20/2016 10:33 PM, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
>>> pxa27x_camera is actively maintained, the latest submission request for merge
>>> is 11 days ago :
>>>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/8/789
>>>
>>> I can submit a patch in MAINTAINERS if you wish to take it in my bucket.
>>
>> Please do! That's an easy patch, and then it is clear someone is actively maintaining
>> this.
> I prepared the patch.
> 
> Now the question is : how will handle the pxa_camera patches, ie. taking them
> through his tree ?
> 
> I'm under the impression that Guennadi is very busy, so for the MAINTAINERS
> patch as for the next ones, which tree will be handling them ? Moreover as most
> probably I will be the biggest contributor, who will be reviewing me ?

Guennadi is the soc-camera maintainer. So once pxa_camera no longer uses soc-camera
('independent v4l2 host') it would be me who would review the code and manages
patches.

BTW, where can I get pxa hardware? It is always nice if I am able to test code
as well. But I haven't been able to find a source for this platform.

Regards,

	Hans

> We might also pave a path of Guennadi's point (3), ie. have pxa_camera "become
> independent V4L2 host".
> 
>> BTW, vb1 refers to videobuf-core.h whereas vb2 refers to its successor videobuf2-core.h
>> and videobuf2-v4l2.h. The vb2 framework is vastly superior and integrates nicely with
>> dmabuf for buffer sharing between hardware components.
> Ok, I'll have a look too.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> --
> Robert
>