From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.207.121]:27105 "HELO web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751644AbZDUJg7 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:36:59 -0400 Message-ID: <182771.15423.qm@web32107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:36:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Agustin Reply-To: gatoguan-os@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] v4l2-subdev: add a v4l2_i2c_new_dev_subdev() function To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: Hans Verkuil , Linux Media Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, --- On 21/4/09, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Video (sub)devices, connecting to SoCs over generic i2c busses cannot > provide a pointer to struct v4l2_device in i2c-adapter driver_data, and > provide their own i2c_board_info data, including a platform_data field. > Add a v4l2_i2c_new_dev_subdev() API function that does exactly the same > as v4l2_i2c_new_subdev() but uses different parameters, and make > v4l2_i2c_new_subdev() a wrapper around it. [snip] I am wondering about this ongoing effort and its pursued goal: is it to hierarchize the v4l architecture, adding new abstraction levels? If so, what for? To me, as an eventual driver developer, this makes it harder to integrate my own drivers, as I use I2C and V4L in my system but I don't want them to be tightly coupled. Of course I can ignore this "subdev" stuff and just link against soc-camera which is what I need, and manage I2C without V4L knowing about it. Which is what I do. So, which is the point I am missing? Regards, --Agustín. -- Agustin Ferrin Pozuelo Embedded Systems Consultant http://embedded.ferrin.org Tel. +34 610502587