Re: [PATCH 3/4] SoC camera: Remove the framework and the drivers

[jacopo mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5006 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 05:35:23PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:28:57 +0100
> jacopo mondi <jacopo@jmondi.org> escreveu:
>
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 09:14:09AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Em Tue, 30 Oct 2018 01:21:34 +0200
> > > Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> escreveu:
> > >
> > > > The SoC camera framework has been obsolete for some time and it is no
> > > > longer functional. A few drivers have been converted to the V4L2
> > > > sub-device API but for the rest the conversion has not taken place yet.
> > > >
> > > > In order to keep the tree clean and to avoid keep maintaining
> > > > non-functional and obsolete code, remove the SoC camera framework as well
> > > > as the drivers that depend on it.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Resending, this time with git format-patch -D .
> > > >
> > > >  MAINTAINERS                                        |    8 -
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/Kconfig                          |    8 -
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/Makefile                         |    1 -
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/Kconfig               |   66 -
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/Makefile              |   10 -
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov9640.h              |  208 --
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_mt9m001.c         |  757 -------
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_mt9t112.c         | 1157 -----------
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_mt9v022.c         | 1012 ---------
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov5642.c          | 1087 ----------
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov772x.c          | 1123 ----------
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov9640.c          |  738 -------
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_ov9740.c          |  996 ---------
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_rj54n1cb0c.c      | 1415 -------------
> > > >  drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/soc_tw9910.c          |  999 ---------
> > >
> > > I don't see why we should remove those. I mean, Jacopo is
> > > actually converting those drivers to not depend on soc_camera,
> > > and it is a way better to review those patches with the old
> > > code in place.
> >
> > I have converted a few drivers used by some SH boards where I dropped
> > dependencies on soc_camera, not to remove camera support from those. For
> > others I don't have cameras to test with, nor I know about boards in
> > mainline using them.
> >
> > From my side, driver conversion is done.
> >
> > >
> > > So, at least while Jacopo is keep doing this work, I would keep
> > > at Kernel tree, as it helps to see a diff when the driver changes
> > > when getting rid of soc_camera dependencies.
> > >
> > > So, IMO, the best would be to move those to /staging, eventually
> > > depending on BROKEN.
> >
> > However, somebody with a (rather old) development setup using those camera
> > sensor may wants to see if mainline supports them. We actually had a
> > few patches coming lately (for ov. I understand Sakari's argument that those
> > could be retrieved from git history, but a few people will notice imo.
> > I also understand the additional maintainership burden of keeping them
> > around, so I'm fine with either ways ;)
> >
> > This is a list of the current situation in mainline, to have a better
> > idea:
> >
> > $for i in `seq 1 9`; do CAM=$(head -n $i /tmp/soc_cams | tail -n 1); echo  $CAM; find drivers/media/ -name  $CAM; done
> > t9m001.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9m001.c
> > mt9t112.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/mt9t112.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9t112.c
> > mt9v022.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9v022.c
> > ov5642.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov5642.c
> > ov772x.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/ov772x.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov772x.c
> > ov9640.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov9640.c
> > ov9740.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/ov9740.c
> > rj54n1cb0c.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/rj54n1cb0c.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/rj54n1cb0c.c
> > tw9910.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/tw9910.c
> > drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/tw9910.c
> >
> > So it seems to me only the following sensor do not have a
> > non-soc_camera driver at the moment:
> >
> > mt9m001.c
> > mt9v022.c
> > ov5642.c
> > ov9640.c
> > ov9740.c

For a few of them (mt9m001, ov5642) there are cheap modules available
online. The others ones have public documentation. I know they are old
and dusty, supporting only parallel video interface.

>
> Ok. So, what about keeping just those 5 drivers at staging? If, after an
> year, people won't do conversions, we can just drop them.
>

Let's see what Sakari and Hans think. Again, I'm fine with both ways
;)

Thanks
   j

> In any case, if we're ripping off soc_camera from the main tree,
> moving to staging, no dependencies for soc_camera.h should be
> kept at main tree. If any driver requires it, it should also be
> moved to staging.
>
> Thanks,
> Mauro

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]