From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:52409 "EHLO relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725743AbeJaFYA (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2018 01:24:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:28:57 +0100 From: jacopo mondi To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Sakari Ailus , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, hverkuil@xs4all.nl, mchehab@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] SoC camera: Remove the framework and the drivers Message-ID: <20181030202857.GH15991@w540> References: <20181029230029.14630-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <20181029232134.25831-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <20181030064311.030b6a81@coco.lan> <20181030091409.76b07620@coco.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="37nyS7qXrnu4wN2o" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181030091409.76b07620@coco.lan> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --37nyS7qXrnu4wN2o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 we= ll > > as the drivers that depend on it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus > > --- > > 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. =46rom 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: $for i in `seq 1 9`; do CAM=3D$(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 Thanks j > > Thanks, > Mauro --37nyS7qXrnu4wN2o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJb2L8JAAoJEHI0Bo8WoVY8lfAQAKWT2vuZ+w/txYZrDeUqbhRf f3dCCklpR88dHv65kxgC2gkW1aZLeUxzDW34zTf0hwXyFQ+t1S5Gx8z9aXMT8MHq Nx+LE7mfl0ZY7pwVtLnqoTHAciofO/FcEd9mfCFutGb7iTeoI4NHH6GV9lq6ql8O 6JjXlIfKvalNYDVZTi0j3cdpdm9Z6LurPIbO+/qh0Rj4X5M9Ac5mgLSazwwClCHD iACeqXVPZuYA4bHWbr+Tmti2pB8KzI5QRzfErnwdAJVzocDnS+ilqNJeZwDOvnYJ Ss6bCKdmxob79mW11YmZ5mUCr/KuFMEJevKpzL81qF14KdZYgyKHp8O6jWv83TyV grL1Pl5T/16Nwq7cK5VDHwW6/gCWS+/h7AEOzvASdZHoM4RJQbzCahVxzzS1WbeP Fka9TFf78gJT94eo0vCn+NLjZ7s40THjAs9L+WM2H/Af+844E2ZFFCiYUKePbHXT Y15Uub2BBczvPwKgKRulht061f7LPIYkdcd6DBuDK6M+DgBmvTPfF3i/gOddVOiM xWOYem9uTZ7uoGFsNasLDrUPc6ZLR4m+ISTTw/pFQDVioGSUZlQBiZYCGLu3wtQS /hDTH5f5xiuuUCEIaEiLhOIFDM40cInYEgaM2lnCo2LlxTFiysJ6Q9aBYMJIT+hj eaxRq353dD0e11s1mkue =mT5E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --37nyS7qXrnu4wN2o--