Re: [PATCH 3/7] media: imx274: don't hard-code the subdev name to DRIVER_NAME

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

Hello,

On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 14:38:43 EEST Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 01:29:36PM +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 02:07:21PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 06:02:55PM +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote:

[snip]

> >>> Then we should probably also apply the following patch I submitted :
> >>> 
> >>> "media: v4l2-common: v4l2_spi_subdev_init : generate unique name"
> >>> 
> >>> 	https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10553035/
> >>> 
> >>> and perhaps
> >>> 
> >>> "media: v4l2-common: simplify v4l2_i2c_subdev_init name generation"
> >>> 
> >>> 	https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10553037/
> >> 
> >> The problem with this patch is that the existing naming scheme is very
> >> similar while the new one offers no tangible benefits apart from being
> >> in line with the rest of the kernel. That's still not a benefit for uAPI:
> >> changing the name is certain to break user space applications.
> > 
> > I agree with you on the patch for v4l2_i2c_subdev_init (I wrote
> > 'perhaps'), but you don't say anything on the one about
> > v4l2_spi_subdev_init :), which fixes an actual bug.  I have 2 identical
> > SPI-controlled sensors on the same board, and without my patch they get
> > the same subdev name.  Of course, I could fix that in the sensor driver
> > itself, but that's not what we want, or do we ?
> 
> Good point. I missed the naming of the SPI devices ignored any bus
> information there. I'm rather inclined towards taking the SPI patch. Hans,
> Mauro, Laurent; any opinion on that?

I agree that the SPI patch makes sense, I think we should take it.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart