From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from nasmtp01.atmel.com ([192.199.1.245]:28431 "EHLO DVREDG01.corp.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752333AbcBWHGL (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 02:06:11 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] Move some soc-camera drivers to staging in preparation for removal To: Ludovic Desroches , Laurent Pinchart References: <56C71778.2030706@xs4all.nl> <1685709.3nM7dPdDel@avalon> <1864387.TRmC7Phqsl@avalon> <20160222160857.GB2607@odux.rfo.atmel.com> CC: Guennadi Liakhovetski , Hans Verkuil , Linux Media Mailing List , Josh Wu , Robert Jarzmik , Fabio Estevam , Javier Martin , Nicolas Ferre From: "Wu, Songjun" Message-ID: <56CC04DA.3030002@atmel.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:06:02 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160222160857.GB2607@odux.rfo.atmel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2/23/2016 00:08, Ludovic Desroches wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Hi Guennadi, >> >> (CC'ing Ludovic Desroches) >> >> On Monday 22 February 2016 14:39:08 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >>> Hi Laurent, >>> >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> As far as I know Renesas (or at least the kernel upstream team) doesn't >>>> care. The driver is only used on five SH boards, I'd also say it can be >>>> removed. >>> [snip] >>> >>>>>>> - atmel-isi: ATMEL Image Sensor Interface (ISI) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe this is still actively maintained. Would someone be >>>>>>> willing to convert this? It doesn't look like a complex driver. >>>> >>>> That would be nice, I would like to avoid dropping this one. >>> >>> Thanks for clarifying the state of the CEU driver. I did say, that I am >>> fine with dropping soc-camera gradually, and I stay with that. But I see >>> now, that at least two drivers want to stay active: Atmel ISI and PXA270. >>> One possibility is of course to make them independent drivers. If people >>> are prepared to invest work into that - sure, would be great! If we >>> however decide to keep soc-camera, I could propose the following: IIUC, >>> the largest problem is sensor drivers, that cannot be reused for other >>> non-soc-camera bridge drivers. The thing is, out of all the sensor drivers >>> currently under drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera only a couple are in use on >>> those active PXA270 and Atmel boards. I could propose the following: >>> >>> 1. Remove all bridge drivers, that noone cares about. >>> 2. If anyone ever needs to use any of soc-camera-associated sensor >>> drivers, take them out of soc-camera and _remove_ any soc-camera >>> dependencies >>> 3. If any soc-camera boards will need that specific driver, which in >>> itself is already unlikely, we'll have to fix that by teaching >>> soc-camera to work with generic sensor drivers! >> >> That sounds like a good plan. >> >> Ludovic, any chance someone at Atmel could convert the ISI driver ? > > I add Songjun to the cc list. I think he has in mind to do this > conversion. > > Songjun, can you confirm? > > Full thread here: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.video-input-infrastructure/99290 > Laurent, I will take the ISI driver, convert it from soc_camera to V4L2. > Regards > > Ludovic >