linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 11/17] ARM: dts: imx6q-apalis: Add ov5640 mipi csi camera

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:   Wed, 18 May 2022 16:28:31 +0200
From:   Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@...il.com>
To:     Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
Cc:     Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@...adex.com>,
        Oleksandr Suvorov <oleksandr.suvorov@...adex.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 11/17] ARM: dts: imx6q-apalis: Add ov5640 mipi csi camera

Hi Fabio

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:28 PM Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Max,
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 8:59 AM Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > +       ov5640_csi_cam: ov5640_mipi@3c {
> > +               compatible = "ovti,ov5640";
>
> Does it make sense to describe the ov5640 camera in the Apalis SoM dtsi?
>
> The camera is not populated in the SoM. What if the customer baseboard
> uses a different camera?
>
> The same applies to the adv720 description.

We moved to a pattern where we do describe the 'Toradex' peripherals
in the SoM dtsi but
keep their status disabled. Then if the peripheral is on the carrier
board we only have to
enable it in the carrier board dts, for peripherals attached to the
carrier boards (e.g. like the
cameras) we enable it in device tree overlays.
This did reduce code duplication a lot.
A customer who attaches a different camera would add its camera node
in its device tree
or overlay and keep the ov5640 or adv7280 nodes disabled.

So I would rather not change anything here.

Max