From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch (Valentin Longchamp) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:41:13 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 5/6] mx31moboard: camera support In-Reply-To: References: <1255599780-12948-1-git-send-email-valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch> <1255599780-12948-2-git-send-email-valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch> <1255599780-12948-3-git-send-email-valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch> <1255599780-12948-4-git-send-email-valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch> <1255599780-12948-5-git-send-email-valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch> <1255599780-12948-6-git-send-email-valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch> Message-ID: <4ADC96A9.3090403@epfl.ch> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Guennadi, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Valentin Longchamp wrote: > >> We have two mt9t031 cameras that have a muxed bus on the robot. >> We can control which one we are using with gpio outputs. This >> currently is not optimal > > So, what prevents you from registering two platform devices for your two > cameras? Is there a problem with that? The lack of time until now to do it properly. I sent those patches as initial RFC (and by the way thanks for your comment). I would like to have one video interface only and that I can switch between the two physical camera using a quite simple system call. Would that be compatible with registering the two platform devices ? Val -- Valentin Longchamp, PhD Student, EPFL-STI-LSRO1 valentin.longchamp at epfl.ch, Phone: +41216937827 http://people.epfl.ch/valentin.longchamp MEA3485, Station 9, CH-1015 Lausanne