Hi Bryan,
Thanks for reiterating this patch!
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Bryan Wu wrote:
> From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovet...@gmx.de>
>
> Currently soc-camera doesn't work with independently registered I2C client
> devices, it has to register them itself. This patch adds support for such
> configurations, in which case client drivers have to request deferred
> probing until their host becomes available and enables the data interface.
>
> With OF we aren't getting platform data any more. To minimise changes we
> create all the missing data ourselves, including compulsory struct
> soc_camera_link objects. Host-client linking is now done, based on the OF
> data. Media bus numbers also have to be assigned dynamically.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovet...@gmx.de>
> Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <pe...@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/soc_camera.c | 396
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> include/media/soc_camera.h | 9 +
> 2 files changed, 399 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/soc_camera.c
> b/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/soc_camera.c
> index 4b8c024..560d5ab 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/soc_camera.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/soc_camera.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> @@ -36,6 +37,7 @@
> #include <media/v4l2-common.h>
> #include <media/v4l2-ioctl.h>
> #include <media/v4l2-dev.h>
> +#include <media/v4l2-of.h>
> #include <media/videobuf-core.h>
> #include <media/videobuf2-core.h>
>
> @@ -49,6 +51,7 @@
> vb2_is_streaming(&(icd)->vb2_vidq))
>
> #define MAP_MAX_NUM 32
> +static DECLARE_BITMAP(host_map, MAP_MAX_NUM);
> static DECLARE_BITMAP(device_map, MAP_MAX_NUM);
> static LIST_HEAD(hosts);
> static LIST_HEAD(devices);
> @@ -58,6 +61,17 @@ static LIST_HEAD(devices);
> */
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(list_lock);
>
> +struct soc_camera_of_client {
> + struct soc_camera_desc *sdesc;
> + struct v4l2_of_endpoint ep;
> + struct platform_device *pdev;
> + struct dev_archdata archdata;
> + struct device_node *link_node;
> + union {
> + struct i2c_board_info i2c_info;
> + };
> +};
> +
> struct soc_camera_async_client {
> struct v4l2_async_subdev *sensor;
> struct v4l2_async_notifier notifier;
> @@ -67,6 +81,8 @@ struct soc_camera_async_client {
>
> static int soc_camera_video_start(struct soc_camera_device *icd);
> static int video_dev_create(struct soc_camera_device *icd);
> +static void soc_camera_of_i2c_info(struct device_node *node,
> + struct soc_camera_of_client *sofc);
If you have to resubmit this patch, plase, make sure the second line of
the above declaration is aligned af usual - under the first character
_after_ the opening bracket.
>
> int soc_camera_power_on(struct device *dev, struct soc_camera_subdev_desc
> *ssdd,
> struct v4l2_clk *clk)
> @@ -817,6 +833,7 @@ static unsigned int soc_camera_poll(struct file *file,
> poll_table *pt)
> if (icd->streamer != file)
> return POLLERR;
>
> + mutex_lock(&list_lock);
> mutex_lock(&ici->host_lock);
> if (ici->ops->init_videobuf && list_empty(&icd->vb_vidq.stream))
> dev_err(icd->pdev, "Trying to poll with no queued buffers!\n");
Is this really correct?? An unbalanced mutex_lock()? Hm, you tested the
patch, right?...
> @@ -1169,6 +1186,144 @@ static void scan_add_host(struct soc_camera_host *ici)
> mutex_unlock(&list_lock);
> }
>
> +static struct soc_camera_of_client *
> +soc_camera_of_alloc_client(const struct soc_camera_host *ici,
> + struct device_node *ep)
I would prefer to keep the original line breaking - I really don't care
about 80 characters, but I do care about keeping a consistent style across
the file. And I'm not sure "ep" is a better name for a struct device_node
pointer, than the original "node."
> +{
> + struct soc_camera_of_client *sofc;
> + struct soc_camera_desc *sdesc;
I'm really grateful, that you decided to use my original patch and
preserve my authorship! But then, I think, it'd be also better to avoid
unnecessary changes to it. What was wrong with allocation of *sofc in the
definition line?
> + int i, ret;
> +
> + sofc = devm_kzalloc(ici->v4l2_dev.dev, sizeof(*sofc), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!sofc)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + sdesc = devm_kzalloc(ici->v4l2_dev.dev, sizeof(*sdesc), GFP_KERNEL);
Why do you want to keep *sdesc? Isn't this discarded immediately? What was
wrong with having it on stack?
> + if (!sdesc)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + sdesc->host_desc.host_wait = true;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&list_lock);
> + i = find_first_zero_bit(device_map, MAP_MAX_NUM);
> + if (i < MAP_MAX_NUM)
> + set_bit(i, device_map);
> + mutex_unlock(&list_lock);
> + if (i >= MAP_MAX_NUM)
> + return NULL;
> + sofc->pdev = platform_device_alloc("soc-camera-pdrv", i);
> + if (!sofc->pdev)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + sdesc->host_desc.ep = &sofc->ep;
> + sdesc->host_desc.bus_id = ici->nr;
> +
> + ret = platform_device_add_data(sofc->pdev, sdesc, sizeof(*sdesc));
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return NULL;
> + sofc->sdesc = sofc->pdev->dev.platform_data;
> +
> + soc_camera_of_i2c_info(ep, sofc);
> +
> + return sofc;
> +}
> +
> +static int soc_camera_of_register_client(struct soc_camera_of_client *sofc)
> +{
> + return platform_device_add(sofc->pdev);
> +}
> +
> +struct soc_camera_wait_pdev {
> + struct notifier_block nb;
> + struct completion complete;
> + struct soc_camera_desc *sdesc;
> +};
> +
> +static int wait_complete(struct notifier_block *nb,
> + unsigned long action, void *data)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = data;
> + struct soc_camera_wait_pdev *wait = container_of(nb,
> + struct soc_camera_wait_pdev, nb);
> +
> + if (dev->platform_data == wait->sdesc &&
> + action == BUS_NOTIFY_BOUND_DRIVER) {
> + complete(&wait->complete);
> + return NOTIFY_OK;
> + }
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> +}
> +
> +static void scan_of_host(struct soc_camera_host *ici)
> +{
> + struct soc_camera_of_client *sofc;
> + struct soc_camera_device *icd;
> + struct device_node *node = NULL;
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + struct soc_camera_wait_pdev wait = {
> + .nb.notifier_call = wait_complete,
> + };
> + int ret;
> +
> + node = v4l2_of_get_next_endpoint(ici->v4l2_dev.dev->of_node,
> + node);
> + if (!node)
> + break;
> +
> + if (ici->ops->of_node_internal &&
> + ici->ops->of_node_internal(node)) {
> + /* No icd is needed for this link */
> + of_node_put(node);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + sofc = soc_camera_of_alloc_client(ici, node);
> + if (!sofc) {
> + dev_err(ici->v4l2_dev.dev,
> + "%s(): failed to create a client device\n",
> + __func__);
> + of_node_put(node);
> + break;
> + }
> + v4l2_of_parse_endpoint(node, &sofc->ep);
> +
> + init_completion(&wait.complete);
> + wait.sdesc = sofc->sdesc;
> + bus_register_notifier(&platform_bus_type, &wait.nb);
> +
> + ret = soc_camera_of_register_client(sofc);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + /* Useless thing, but keep trying */
> + platform_device_put(sofc->pdev);
> + of_node_put(node);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + wait_for_completion(&wait.complete);
> + /* soc_camera_pdrv_probe() probed successfully */
> + bus_unregister_notifier(&platform_bus_type, &wait.nb);
> +
> + icd = platform_get_drvdata(sofc->pdev);
> + if (!icd) {
> + /* Cannot be... */
> + platform_device_put(sofc->pdev);
> + of_node_put(node);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + icd->parent = ici->v4l2_dev.dev;
> + mutex_lock(&list_lock);
I understand why you changed from .host_lock to the global list_lock, but
I'm not sure why you took the parent assignment out of the mutex? I think
I had a reason to keep it undeer the mutex, so, unless we're sure it's not
needed, maybe better keep it under the lock?
> + ret = soc_camera_probe(ici, icd);
> + mutex_unlock(&list_lock);
> + sofc->link_node = node;
> + /*
> + * We could destroy the icd in there error case here, but the
> + * non-OF version doesn't do that, so, we can keep it around too
> + */
> + }
> +}
> +
> /*
> * It is invalid to call v4l2_clk_enable() after a successful probing
> * asynchronously outside of V4L2 operations, i.e. with .host_lock not held.
> @@ -1231,6 +1386,7 @@ static int soc_camera_dyn_pdev(struct soc_camera_desc
> *sdesc,
> {
> struct platform_device *pdev;
> int ret, i;
> + struct v4l2_of_endpoint *ep = sdesc->host_desc.ep;
>
> mutex_lock(&list_lock);
> i = find_first_zero_bit(device_map, MAP_MAX_NUM);
> @@ -1252,6 +1408,17 @@ static int soc_camera_dyn_pdev(struct soc_camera_desc
> *sdesc,
>
> sasc->pdev = pdev;
>
> + if (ep) {
> + struct soc_camera_of_client *sofc = container_of(ep,
> + struct soc_camera_of_client, ep);
> + struct device_node *node = sofc->link_node;
> + /* Don't dead-lock: remove the device here under the lock */
> + clear_bit(sofc->pdev->id, device_map);
> + if (node)
> + of_node_put(node);
> + platform_device_unregister(sofc->pdev);
> + }
> +
This hunk used to be in soc_camera_remove(). Are you sure
soc_camera_dyn_pdev() is the correct place for it now?
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1318,6 +1485,161 @@ eusrfmt:
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_I2C_BOARDINFO
> +static void soc_camera_of_i2c_ifill(struct soc_camera_of_client *sofc,
> + struct i2c_client *client)
Any specific reason to change formatting?
> +{
> + struct i2c_board_info *info = &sofc->i2c_info;
> + struct soc_camera_desc *sdesc = sofc->sdesc;
> +
> + /* on OF I2C devices platform_data == NULL */
> + info->flags = client->flags;
> + info->addr = client->addr;
> + info->irq = client->irq;
> + info->archdata = &sofc->archdata;
> +
> + /* archdata is always empty on OF I2C devices */
> + strlcpy(info->type, client->name, sizeof(info->type));
> +
> + sdesc->host_desc.i2c_adapter_id = client->adapter->nr;
> +}
> +
> +static bool soc_camera_i2c_client_match(struct soc_camera_desc *sdesc,
> + struct i2c_client *client)
> +{
> + if (sdesc->host_desc.ep) {
> + struct device_node *of_node =
> sdesc->host_desc.board_info->of_node;
> + struct i2c_client *expected;
> +
> + expected = of_find_i2c_device_by_node(of_node);
> + if (!expected)
> + return false;
> +
> + put_device(&expected->dev);
> +
> + return expected == client;
> + }
> +
> + return client->addr == sdesc->host_desc.board_info->addr &&
> + client->adapter->nr == sdesc->host_desc.i2c_adapter_id;
> +}
> +
> +static int soc_camera_i2c_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
> + unsigned long action, void *data)
I don't think we want to use an I2C bus notifier now. We've got a
different asynchronous (I2C) subdevice registration API now - I mentioned
v4l2_async_register_subdev() and friends in my original reply to you, I
think.
> +{
> + struct device *dev = data;
> + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> + struct soc_camera_device *icd = container_of(nb, struct
> soc_camera_device, notifier);
> + struct soc_camera_desc *sdesc = to_soc_camera_desc(icd);
> + struct soc_camera_host *ici = to_soc_camera_host(icd->parent);
> + struct v4l2_of_endpoint *ep;
> + struct v4l2_subdev_platform_data *sd_pdata;
> + struct i2c_adapter *adap = NULL;
> + struct v4l2_subdev *subdev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + dev_dbg(dev, "%s(%lu): %x on %u\n", __func__, action,
> + client->addr, client->adapter->nr);
> +
> + if (!soc_camera_i2c_client_match(sdesc, client))
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> +
> + ep = sdesc->host_desc.ep;
> + sd_pdata = &sdesc->subdev_desc.sd_pdata;
> +
> + switch (action) {
> + case BUS_NOTIFY_BIND_DRIVER:
> + client->dev.platform_data = sdesc;
> + if (ep) {
> + struct soc_camera_of_client *sofc = container_of(ep,
> + struct soc_camera_of_client,
> ep);
> + soc_camera_of_i2c_ifill(sofc, client);
> + }
> +
> + return NOTIFY_OK;
> + case BUS_NOTIFY_BOUND_DRIVER:
> + adap = i2c_get_adapter(sdesc->host_desc.i2c_adapter_id);
> + if (!adap)
> + break;
> +
> + if (!try_module_get(dev->driver->owner))
> + /* clean up */
> + break;
> +
> + subdev = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> +
> + if (v4l2_device_register_subdev(&ici->v4l2_dev, subdev))
> + subdev = NULL;
> +
> + module_put(dev->driver->owner);
> +
> + if (!subdev)
> + break;
> + client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(subdev);
> + icd->control = &client->dev;
> + mutex_lock(&ici->host_lock);
> + ret = soc_camera_probe_finish(icd);
> + mutex_unlock(&ici->host_lock);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + break;
> +
> + return NOTIFY_OK;
> + default:
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> + }
> +
> + if (adap)
> + i2c_put_adapter(adap);
> + if (icd->vdev) {
> + video_device_release(icd->vdev);
> + icd->vdev = NULL;
> + }
> + regulator_bulk_free(sd_pdata->num_regulators, sd_pdata->regulators);
> + v4l2_ctrl_handler_free(&icd->ctrl_handler);
> +
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> +}
> +
> +static void soc_camera_of_i2c_info(struct device_node *node,
> + struct soc_camera_of_client *sofc)
> +{
> + struct i2c_client *client;
> + struct soc_camera_desc *sdesc = sofc->sdesc;
> + struct i2c_board_info *info = &sofc->i2c_info;
> + struct device_node *port, *sensor, *bus;
> +
> + port = v4l2_of_get_remote_port(node);
> + if (!port)
> + return;
> +
> + /* Check the bus */
> + sensor = of_get_parent(port);
> + bus = of_get_parent(sensor);
> +
> + if (of_node_cmp(bus->name, "i2c")) {
> + of_node_put(port);
> + of_node_put(sensor);
> + of_node_put(bus);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + info->of_node = sensor;
> + sdesc->host_desc.board_info = info;
> +
> + client = of_find_i2c_device_by_node(sensor);
> + /*
> + * of_i2c_register_devices() took a reference to the OF node, it is not
> + * dropped, when the I2C device is removed, so, we don't need an
> + * additional reference.
> + */
> + of_node_put(sensor);
> + if (client) {
> + soc_camera_of_i2c_ifill(sofc, client);
> + put_device(&client->dev);
> + }
> +
> + /* client hasn't attached to I2C yet */
> +}
> +
> static int soc_camera_i2c_init(struct soc_camera_device *icd,
> struct soc_camera_desc *sdesc)
> {
> @@ -1336,6 +1658,15 @@ static int soc_camera_i2c_init(struct
> soc_camera_device *icd,
> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> }
>
> + if (sdesc->host_desc.host_wait) {
> + int ret;
> + icd->notifier.notifier_call = soc_camera_i2c_notify;
> + ret = bus_register_notifier(&i2c_bus_type, &icd->notifier);
> + if (!ret)
> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> ici = to_soc_camera_host(icd->parent);
> adap = i2c_get_adapter(shd->i2c_adapter_id);
> if (!adap) {
> @@ -1375,6 +1706,7 @@ static int soc_camera_i2c_init(struct soc_camera_device
> *icd,
> ret = -ENODEV;
> goto ei2cnd;
> }
> + mutex_unlock(&list_lock);
Is this balanced?
>
> client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(subdev);
>
> @@ -1413,6 +1745,27 @@ static void soc_camera_i2c_free(struct
> soc_camera_device *icd)
> icd->clk = NULL;
> }
>
> +static void soc_camera_i2c_reprobe(struct soc_camera_device *icd)
> +{
> + struct i2c_client *client =
> + to_i2c_client(to_soc_camera_control(icd));
> + struct i2c_adapter *adap;
> +
> + if (icd->notifier.notifier_call == soc_camera_i2c_notify)
> + bus_unregister_notifier(&i2c_bus_type, &icd->notifier);
> +
> + if (!icd->control)
> + return;
> +
> + adap = client->adapter;
> +
> + icd->control = NULL;
> + v4l2_device_unregister_subdev(i2c_get_clientdata(client));
> + /* Put device back in deferred-probing state */
> + i2c_unregister_device(client);
> + i2c_new_device(adap, icd->sdesc->host_desc.board_info);
> +}
This isn't needed either any more. v4l2-async.c does reprobing for us.
So, looks like more work is needed to really update this to the v4l2-async
API.
Thanks
Guennadi
> +
> /*
> * V4L2 asynchronous notifier callbacks. They are all called under a
> v4l2-async
> * internal global mutex, therefore cannot race against other asynchronous
> @@ -1577,6 +1930,8 @@ static void scan_async_host(struct soc_camera_host *ici)
> #define soc_camera_i2c_init(icd, sdesc) (-ENODEV)
> #define soc_camera_i2c_free(icd) do {} while (0)
> #define scan_async_host(ici) do {} while (0)
> +#define soc_camera_i2c_reprobe(icd) do {} while (0)
> +#define soc_camera_of_i2c_info(node, sofc) do {} while (0)
> #endif
>
> /* Called during host-driver probe */
> @@ -1615,7 +1970,9 @@ static int soc_camera_probe(struct soc_camera_host *ici,
> /* Non-i2c cameras, e.g., soc_camera_platform, have no board_info */
> if (shd->board_info) {
> ret = soc_camera_i2c_init(icd, sdesc);
> - if (ret < 0 && ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + return 0;
> + if (ret < 0)
> goto eadd;
> } else if (!shd->add_device || !shd->del_device) {
> ret = -EINVAL;
> @@ -1697,7 +2054,10 @@ static int soc_camera_remove(struct soc_camera_device
> *icd)
> }
>
> if (sdesc->host_desc.board_info) {
> - soc_camera_i2c_free(icd);
> + if (sdesc->host_desc.host_wait)
> + soc_camera_i2c_reprobe(icd);
> + else
> + soc_camera_i2c_free(icd);
> } else {
> struct device *dev = to_soc_camera_control(icd);
> struct device_driver *drv = dev ? dev->driver : NULL;
> @@ -1813,17 +2173,34 @@ int soc_camera_host_register(struct soc_camera_host
> *ici)
> ici->ops->enum_framesizes = default_enum_framesizes;
>
> mutex_lock(&list_lock);
> - list_for_each_entry(ix, &hosts, list) {
> - if (ix->nr == ici->nr) {
> + if (ici->nr == (unsigned char)-1) {
> + /* E.g. OF host: dynamic number */
> + /* TODO: consider using IDR */
> + ici->nr = find_first_zero_bit(host_map, MAP_MAX_NUM);
> + if (ici->nr >= MAP_MAX_NUM) {
> ret = -EBUSY;
> goto edevreg;
> }
> + } else {
> + if (ici->nr >= MAP_MAX_NUM) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto edevreg;
> + }
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(ix, &hosts, list) {
> + if (ix->nr == ici->nr) {
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> + goto edevreg;
> + }
> + }
> }
>
> ret = v4l2_device_register(ici->v4l2_dev.dev, &ici->v4l2_dev);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto edevreg;
>
> + set_bit(ici->nr, host_map);
> +
> list_add_tail(&ici->list, &hosts);
> mutex_unlock(&list_lock);
>
> @@ -1837,9 +2214,11 @@ int soc_camera_host_register(struct soc_camera_host
> *ici)
> * dynamically!
> */
> scan_async_host(ici);
> - else
> + else if (!ici->v4l2_dev.dev->of_node)
> /* Legacy: static platform devices from board data */
> scan_add_host(ici);
> + else /* Scan subdevices from OF info */
> + scan_of_host(ici);
>
> return 0;
>
> @@ -1857,6 +2236,8 @@ void soc_camera_host_unregister(struct soc_camera_host
> *ici)
> LIST_HEAD(notifiers);
>
> mutex_lock(&list_lock);
> +
> + clear_bit(ici->nr, host_map);
> list_del(&ici->list);
> list_for_each_entry(icd, &devices, list)
> if (icd->iface == ici->nr && icd->sasc) {
> @@ -1875,7 +2256,10 @@ void soc_camera_host_unregister(struct soc_camera_host
> *ici)
> mutex_lock(&list_lock);
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(icd, tmp, &devices, list)
> - if (icd->iface == ici->nr)
> + if (icd->iface == ici->nr &&
> + icd->parent == ici->v4l2_dev.dev &&
> + (to_soc_camera_control(icd) ||
> + icd->sdesc->host_desc.host_wait))
> soc_camera_remove(icd);
>
> mutex_unlock(&list_lock);
> diff --git a/include/media/soc_camera.h b/include/media/soc_camera.h
> index 865246b..8b9e73f 100644
> --- a/include/media/soc_camera.h
> +++ b/include/media/soc_camera.h
> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ struct soc_camera_device {
> /* soc_camera.c private count. Only accessed with .host_lock held */
> int use_count;
> struct file *streamer; /* stream owner */
> + struct notifier_block notifier; /* Bus-event notifier */
> struct v4l2_clk *clk;
> /* Asynchronous subdevice management */
> struct soc_camera_async_client *sasc;
> @@ -90,6 +91,8 @@ struct soc_camera_host {
> unsigned int *asd_sizes; /* 0-terminated array of asd group
> sizes */
> };
>
> +struct device_node;
> +
> struct soc_camera_host_ops {
> struct module *owner;
> int (*add)(struct soc_camera_device *);
> @@ -128,6 +131,7 @@ struct soc_camera_host_ops {
> int (*set_parm)(struct soc_camera_device *, struct v4l2_streamparm *);
> int (*enum_framesizes)(struct soc_camera_device *, struct
> v4l2_frmsizeenum *);
> unsigned int (*poll)(struct file *, poll_table *);
> + bool (*of_node_internal)(const struct device_node *);
> };
>
> #define SOCAM_SENSOR_INVERT_PCLK (1 << 0)
> @@ -138,6 +142,7 @@ struct soc_camera_host_ops {
>
> struct i2c_board_info;
> struct regulator_bulk_data;
> +struct v4l2_of_endpoint;
>
> struct soc_camera_subdev_desc {
> /* Per camera SOCAM_SENSOR_* bus flags */
> @@ -177,7 +182,9 @@ struct soc_camera_host_desc {
> int bus_id;
> int i2c_adapter_id;
> struct i2c_board_info *board_info;
> + struct v4l2_of_endpoint *ep;
> const char *module_name;
> + bool host_wait;
>
> /*
> * For non-I2C devices platform has to provide methods to add a device
> @@ -242,7 +249,9 @@ struct soc_camera_link {
> int bus_id;
> int i2c_adapter_id;
> struct i2c_board_info *board_info;
> + struct v4l2_of_endpoint *ep;
> const char *module_name;
> + bool host_wait;
>
> /*
> * For non-I2C devices platform has to provide methods to add a device
> --
> 1.8.3.2
>
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
