Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:44:39 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] staging: bcm2835-camera: Register bcm2835-camera with vchiq_bus_type | From | Umang Jain <> |
| |
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
| |