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

Philipp Zabel
2014-06-03T09:30:35Z

Hi Laurent, Guennadi,

Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2014, 16:44 +0200 schrieb Laurent Pinchart:
> 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.
>
> > > > 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.

What steps would need to be taken to make soc_camera work with the
non-soc_camera drivers in drivers/media/i2c?
I don't have any soc_camera platform at hand, although I could try to revive
a PXA270 board.

> > 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 ?

Yes, i.MX6.

> > > 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
Philipp