[PATCH 3/3] pxa_camera: remove init() callback

[Antonio Ospite]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:37:19 +0100 (CET)
Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski at gmx.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:06:53 +0100 (CET)
> > Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski at gmx.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> > > 
> > > > pxa_camera init() callback is sometimes abused to setup MFP for PXA CIF, or
> > > > even to request GPIOs to be used by the camera *sensor*. These initializations
> > > > can be performed statically in machine init functions.
> > > > 
> > > > The current semantics for this init() callback is ambiguous anyways, it is
> > > > invoked in pxa_camera_activate(), hence at device node open, but its users use
> > > > it like a generic initialization to be done at module init time (configure
> > > > MFP, request GPIOs for *sensor* control).
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Ospite <ospite at studenti.unina.it>
> > > 
> > > Antonio, to make the merging easier and avoid imposing extra dependencies, 
> > > I would postpone this to 2.6.34, and just remove uses of .init() by 
> > > pxa-camera users as per your other two patches. Would this be ok with you?
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Guennadi
> > >
> > 
> > Perfectly fine with me.
> > 
> > Feel also free to anticipate me and edit the commit messages to
> > whatever you want in the first two patches. Now that we aren't removing
> > init() immediately after these it makes even more sense to change the
> > phrasing from a future referencing
> > 	"init() is going to be removed"
> > to a more present focused
> > 	"better not to use init() at all"
> > form.
> 
> I cannot edit those subject lines, because I will not be handling those 
> patches, they will go via the PXA tree, that's why it is easier to wait 
> with the pxa patch.
>

I see, I am sending a v2 for the first two patches with changed commit
messages in some hours then. Sorry for the delay.

> Thanks
> Guennadi
> ---
> Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
> Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
> http://www.open-technology.de/

Regards,
   Antonio

-- 
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it

PGP public key ID: 0x4553B001

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20091127/172f15ac/attachment.sig>