Re: [GIT PULL FOR v3.10] Camera sensors patches

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

Hi Mauro,

On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:36:39 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:55:03 +0100 Mark Brown escreveu:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 08:04:52PM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> > > It's probably more clean to provide a dummy clock/regulator in a host
> > > driver (platform) than to add something in a sub-device drivers that
> > > would resolve which resources should be requested and which not.
> > 
> > Yes, that's the general theory for regulators at least - it allows the
> > device driver to just trundle along and not worry about how the board is
> > hooked up.  The other issue it resolves that you didn't mention is that
> > it avoids just ignoring errors which isn't terribly clever.
> 
> I agree. Adding dummy clock/regulator at the host platform driver makes
> sense, as the platform driver knows how the board is hooked up; keeping
> it at the I2C driver doesn't make sense, so the code needs to be moved
> away from it.
> 
> Laurent,
> 
> Could you please work on a patch moving that code to the host platform
> driver?

I think that Mark's point was that the regulators should be provided by 
platform code (in the generic sense, it could be DT on ARM, board code, or a 
USB bridge driver for a webcam that uses the mt9p031 sensor) and used by the 
sensor driver. That's exactly what my mt9p031 patch does.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart