Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] staging: bcm2835-camera: Register bcm2835-camera with vchiq_bus_type

Umang Jain
2023-07-03T14:44:57Z

Hi Greg,

On 7/3/23 3:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 10:16:26PM +0200, Umang Jain wrote:
>> Register the bcm2835-camera with the vchiq_bus_type instead of using
>> platform driver/device.
>>
>> Also the VCHIQ firmware doesn't support device enumeration, hence
>> one has to maintain a list of devices to be registered in the interface.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com>
>> ---
>> .../bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c | 16 +++++++-------
>> .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++---
>> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c
>> index 346d00df815a..f37b2a881d92 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c
>> @@ -24,8 +24,9 @@
>> #include <media/v4l2-event.h>
>> #include <media/v4l2-common.h>
>> #include <linux/delay.h>
>> -#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>
>> +#include "../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.h"
>> +#include "../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_device.h"
>> #include "../vchiq-mmal/mmal-common.h"
>> #include "../vchiq-mmal/mmal-encodings.h"
>> #include "../vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h"
>> @@ -1841,7 +1842,7 @@ static struct v4l2_format default_v4l2_format = {
>> .fmt.pix.sizeimage = 1024 * 768,
>> };
>>
>> -static int bcm2835_mmal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +static int bcm2835_mmal_probe(struct vchiq_device *device)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> struct bcm2835_mmal_dev *dev;
>> @@ -1896,7 +1897,7 @@ static int bcm2835_mmal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> &camera_instance);
>> ret = v4l2_device_register(NULL, &dev->v4l2_dev);
>> if (ret) {
>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: could not register V4L2 device: %d\n",
>> + dev_err(&device->dev, "%s: could not register V4L2 device: %d\n",
>> __func__, ret);
>> goto free_dev;
>> }
>> @@ -1976,7 +1977,7 @@ static int bcm2835_mmal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> -static void bcm2835_mmal_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +static void bcm2835_mmal_remove(struct vchiq_device *device)
>> {
>> int camera;
>> struct vchiq_mmal_instance *instance = gdev[0]->instance;
>> @@ -1988,17 +1989,16 @@ static void bcm2835_mmal_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> vchiq_mmal_finalise(instance);
>> }
>>
>> -static struct platform_driver bcm2835_camera_driver = {
>> +static struct vchiq_driver bcm2835_camera_driver = {
>> .probe = bcm2835_mmal_probe,
>> - .remove_new = bcm2835_mmal_remove,
>> + .remove = bcm2835_mmal_remove,
> No need to change this here, right? That's independant of this patch
> series.

Why not ?

Should I have "remove_new()"  in the struct vchiq_driver {..} [Patch
1/5] instead of "remove()"  -  match up with platform_driver virtual
interface ?

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h