On Monday 16 March 2009 20:10:27 Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote: > Hans, > > That was quick! > > Please see my response inline. > > >>>Yes, that's OK. What timeframe for the subdev conversion did you have > >>> in mind? Personally I would like to see v4l2-int-device removed for > >>> kernel 2.6.31. > > [MK] Sorry to ask a question back. What is the timeframe when 2.6.31 is > available ? I am not very familiar with the kernel release process. I > need to coordinate this with Vaibhav who is responsible from OMAP side > which is using the same tvp514x driver. I will ask him to be in this > discussion.
Each time a new kernel is started by Linus you have two weeks to get major changes in (like this driver). After that you have about 2 months of bug fixing. I suspect the 2.6.30 merge window will open in 1-2 weeks, so the 2.6.31 merge window will be in about 2.5-3 months from now. This is a good article to read as it explains it in more detail: http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/how-participate-linux-community You have to be aware of the kernel release cycle, because if you miss the 2 week merge window, then you may have to wait for 2-2.5 months before the next merge window opens. > >>>> Other responses are inline. > >>>> > >>>> >>>I have one comment that also refers to the new DM646x driver that > >>> > >>>was > >>> > >>>> >>>send to > >>>> >>>the list for review, which is why I CC-ed this to Chaithrika as > >>> > >>>well: > >>>> >>>The DM335/DM6446 adds the following files: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/davinci/ccdc_davinci.c > >>>> >>> create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/davinci/ccdc_davinci.h > >>>> >>> create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/davinci/vpfe_capture.c > >>>> >>> create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/davinci/ccdc_dm355.c > >>>> >>> create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/davinci/ccdc_dm355.h > >>>> >>> create mode 100644 include/media/davinci/vpfe_capture.h > >>>> >>> create mode 100644 include/media/davinci/vpfe_types.h > >>>> >>> create mode 100644 include/media/davinci/ccdc_common.h > >>>> >>> create mode 100644 include/media/davinci/ccdc_hw_device.h > >>>> > >>>> [MK] VPFE capture is a bridge driver that is used on DM355, DM6446 > >>>> and DM365. Since all these DM SoCs have common VPFE (Video > >>>> Processing front end) that is used for capturing video, I have named > >>>> the capture driver > >>> > >>>as > >>> > >>>> vpfe_capture.c. vpfe_types.h has common vpfe types used across all > >>> > >>>DMxxx > >>> > >>>> family. > >>> > >>>But the dm646x also has a vpfe, but that's different than these, > >>> right? So > > [MK] dm646x has vpif (video peripheral/port interface). So my suggestion > is to prefix the bridge driver file by the IP name. For example, DM6467 > has vpif IP for capture and display. So I would go for vpif_capture.c for > bridge driver and vpif_display.c for display driver. However for HW > modules responsible for configuring video port parameters (vpif for > DM6467 and ccdc for DM355/6446), I would suggest adding dmxxx prefix > along with IP name since the hw may differ from one dmxxx family to > another (in terms of features). In future, if TI come up with another > DMxxx SoC similar to DM6467 that too uses vpif, then we don't have to > change the names again to re-use the bridge driver. So I propose the > following for DM6467 (I expect Chaithrika to comment on this). > > vpif_capture.[ch] -> DM6467 Capture bridge driver > vpif_display.[ch] -> DM6467 Display bridge driver > dm6467_vpif.[ch] -> DM6467 capture & display hw module > > For future DM6467 variants, we may able to use the same bridge driver as > was done in DM355/DM6446. I am not sure if the DM6467 capture driver > requires change to re-use across another DM6467 variant. I will let > Chaithrika comment on this. > > >>>that would have headers like dm646x_capture.h etc. > >>> > >>>Given this I am inclined to rather go for dmxxx_foo.c/h. Not ideal, > >>> but that's because you messed up your numbering scheme :-) :-) > >>> > >>>What do you think? > > [MK] See my explanation above. Let us also hear from Chaithrika on this. OK. Using vpif_ and vpfe_ prefixes is OK by me if Chaithrika agrees. As long as the naming is consistent for both dm355/dm6446 and dm646x. Regards, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
