Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] staging: bcm2835-camera: Register bcm2835-camera with vchiq_bus_type

[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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   .../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