[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m3sg174bhw.fsf@t19.piap.pl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:51:07 +0200
From: Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] MEDIA: Driver for ON Semi AR0521 camera sensor
Hi Mauro,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org> writes:
> Media maintainers need a SoB in order to be able to review, as
> driver review takes a lot of time and efforts from reviewers, and
> the time they spend reviewing a driver prevents them to do their
> (paid) work.
Then how do you propose we solve the problem?
For example, how about a declaration: that if somebody is working on
a driver (in this case) and has actually presented a (possibly not yet
mergeable) patch, then versions of this code from other people will not
be accepted at the same time instead. Please note that I don't mean
abandoned code, I mean a code which simply needs some work and thus
a bit of time.
Those other people can always apply their changes once the original code
is accepted, right? And the changes may get a chance to be examined :-)
Or is it too much?
> That's said, on a very quick check, it sounds that this driver requires
> some work. For instance, it is based on an v4l2_subdev_pad_config,
> which was recently replaced upstream.
Well, TBH drivers/media is a fast moving target... But it's something.
I will obviously update this when I'm back from vacation.
Thanks.
--
Krzysztof Hałasa
Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz
Przemysłowy Instytut Automatyki i Pomiarów PIAP
Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warszawa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists