linux-kernel - Re: v4l2-fwnode: status, plans for merge, any branch to merge against?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2017 08:23:02 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        mchehab@...nel.org, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com, sre@...nel.org, pali.rohar@...il.com,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v4l2-fwnode: status, plans for merge, any branch to merge
 against?

On Fri 2017-06-16 01:07:00, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 09:41:29PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c
> > index 4ca3fc9..b80debf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c
> > @@ -2026,7 +2026,7 @@ static int isp_fwnode_parse(struct device *dev, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> >  
> >  	isd->bus = buscfg;
> >  
> > -	ret = v4l2_fwnode_endpoint_parse(fwn, vep);
> > +	ret = v4l2_fwnode_endpoint_parse(fwnode, &vep);
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> 
> I just pushed the fix there.
> 
> Btw. I think we should probably drop the change allocating the sub-device
> configuration separately. It's better to associate the lens, flash and
> eeprom (where it exists) to the sensor than to the CSI-2 receiver. In that
> case there are no async sub-devices without bus configuration.

Actually I thought about that a bit, and am not sure about that.

CSI-2 receiver may not be good place to associate lens and flash with,
agreed.

But is sensor a good place? In particular, phones with two cameras
cooperating (for example one black&white and one color) are getting
common. It seems to be true that each sensor has a lens and autofocus
motor associated, but flash LED is common, and both sensors are
designed to work as one device.

But yes, that's still better than placing it at CSI-2 receiver. But I
guess we should make sure that flash LED can associated with more than
one sensor, and maybe we should have some kind of "camera package"
entity.

Best regards,

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)