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

Guennadi Liakhovetski
2014-05-28T10:08:30Z

On Wed, 28 May 2014, Philipp Zabel wrote:

> Hi Guennadi,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 27.05.2014, 21:48 +0200 schrieb Guennadi Liakhovetski:
> > Hi Philipp,
> >
> > 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. I'm ok with either 1 or 3, whereas 3 is
more difficult than 1.

Thanks
Guennadi