Re: [RFC PATCH] [media] mt9v032: Add support for mt9v022 and mt9v024

Laurent Pinchart
2014-05-28T14:43:57Z

Hi Philipp,

On Wednesday 28 May 2014 16:36:55 Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2014, 13:04 +0200 schrieb Laurent Pinchart:
> > On Wednesday 28 May 2014 12:07:57 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 May 2014, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > > Am Dienstag, den 27.05.2014, 21:48 +0200 schrieb Guennadi
Liakhovetski:
> > > > > On Mon, 26 May 2014, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > > > > From the looks of it, mt9v022 and mt9v032 are very similar,
> > > > > > as are mt9v024 and mt9v034. With minimal changes it is possible
> > > > > > to support mt9v02[24] with the same driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you aware of drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9v022.c?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Unfortunately this driver can't be used in a system without
> > > > soc_camera. It uses soc_camera helpers and doesn't implement pad ops
> > > > among others.
> > >
> > > As I mentioned many times, this compatibility is a matter of someone
> > > just needing and finally doing this. If you need this, please, extend
> > > the mt9v022 driver to also work with non soc-camera hosts, if you need
> > > any help - please feel free to ask, I can send you my conversion code,
> > > that I've done for ov772x, but never managed to finalise testing,
> > > unfortunately.
> > >
> > > > > With this patch you'd duplicate support for both mt9v022 and
> > > > > mt9v024, which doesn't look like a good idea to me.
> > > >
> > > > While this is true, given that the mt9v02x/3x sensors are so similar,
> > > > the support is already duplicated in all but name.
> > > > Would you suggest we should try to merge the mt9v032 and mt9v022
> > > > drivers?
> > >
> > > Out of 3 options:
> > >
> > > 1. extend mt9v022 to work with non soc-camera hosts
> > > 2. extend mt9v032 to also support mt9v022 and mt9v024
> > > 3. merge both mt9v022 and mt9v032 drivers
> > >
> > > option 2 seems the worst to me.
>
> It also is the easiest to achieve and the mt9v032 driver is prettier (as
> in doesn't have support for the external gpio bus shifter, which I don't
> think belongs in the sensor driver).

If you had submitted an entirely new driver for a sensor already supported by
an soc-camera sensor driver, I would have told you to fix the problem on soc-
camera side. As you're only expanding hardware support for an existing driver,
it's hard to nack your patch in all fairness :-) I will thus not veto option
2, even though I would prefer if we fixed the problem once and for all. This
doesn't mean others will accept the option though.

> > > I'm ok with either 1 or 3, whereas 3 is
> > > more difficult than 1.
> >
> > This topic has been discussed over and over. It indeed "just" requires
> > someone to do it, although it might be more complex than that sounds.
> >
> > We need to fix the infrastructure to make sensor drivers completely
> > unaware of soc-camera. This isn't about extending the mt9v022 driver to
> > work with non soc-camera hosts, it's about fixing soc-camera not to
> > require any change to sensor drivers. Philipp, if you have time to work
> > on that, we can discuss what needs to be done.
>
> I don't have a use case for soc_camera. Instead of trying to fix it to
> use generic sensor drivers, I'd rather use that time to prepare
> non-soc_camera capture host support.

Which host would that be, if you can tell ?

> > On the sensor side, we should have a single driver for the mt9v022, 024
> > and 032 sensors. I would vote for merging the two drivers into
> > drivers/media/i2c/mt9v032.c, as that one is closer to the goal of not
> > being soc-camera specific.

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart