From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Corbet Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:06:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/30] viafb: Add a driver for the video capture engine Message-Id: <20100429130638.0abff0dc@tpl.lwn.net> List-Id: References: <1272493051-25380-1-git-send-email-corbet@lwn.net> <1272493051-25380-25-git-send-email-corbet@lwn.net> <20100429191624.30cd67e0@neptune.home> In-Reply-To: <20100429191624.30cd67e0@neptune.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Bruno =?UTF-8?B?UHLDqW1vbnQ=?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Harald Welte , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, JosephChan@via.com.tw, ScottFang@viatech.com.cn, Florian Tobias Schandinat On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:16:24 +0200 Bruno Pr=C3=A9mont wrote: > I think the extra 'viafb-camera' entry should be wrapped into a >=20 > #if defined(CONFIG_FB_VIA_CAMERA) || defined(CONFIG_FB_VIA_CAMERA_MODULE) I think you're right, yes. (As noted above, the camera driver isn't quite ready for merging yet - but I can't swear I would have caught this one, so I'm glad you did). > or probably better be dynamically added when camera module is loaded > and/or detects/probes the camera sub-device. That's a little harder - the platform device is the means by which the camera and the core communicate. I guess I could add a general "I'm a via-core subdev and I'm here now" exported function in the core, but I'm not sure that would be better than just having the platform dev be there. But it definitely shouldn't be around if the camera is configured out. Thanks, jon