Samsung media driver fixes

The following changes since commit f9cd49033b349b8be3bb1f01b39eed837853d880:

Merge tag 'v3.6-rc1' into staging/for_v3.6 (2012-08-03 22:41:33 -0300)

are available in the git repository at:

git://git.infradead.org/users/kmpark/linux-samsung v4l-fixes

for you to fetch changes up to 0e59db054e30658c6955d6e27b0a252cef9bfafc:

s5p-mfc: Fix second memory bank alignment (2012-08-16 19:12:19 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kamil Debski (1):
s5p-mfc: Fix second memory bank alignment

Sylwester Nawrocki (7):
s5p-fimc: Enable FIMC-LITE driver only for SOC_EXYNOS4x12
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-lite video device structure dynamically
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-capture video device dynamically
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-m2m video device dynamically
m5mols: Add missing free_irq() on error path
m5mols: Fix cast warnings from m5mols_[set/get]_ctrl_mode
s5p-fimc: Fix setup of initial links to FIMC entities

 drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols.h          |  4 +--
 drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols_controls.c |  4 +--
 drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols_core.c     |  4 ++-
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/Kconfig         |  2 +-
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-capture.c  | 31 +++++++-----------
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-core.h     |  4 +--
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite-reg.c |  2 +-

 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite.c     | 42 ++++++++++---------------
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite.h     |  2 +-
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-m2m.c      | 40 ++++++++---------------
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-mdevice.c  |  9 ++++--
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-mdevice.h  |  6 ++--
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-reg.c      |  6 ++--
 drivers/media/video/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_ctrl.c   |  2 +-
 14 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)

Hi Mauro,

The following changes since commit f9cd49033b349b8be3bb1f01b39eed837853d880:

Merge tag 'v3.6-rc1' into staging/for_v3.6 (2012-08-03 22:41:33 -0300)

are available in the git repository at:

git://git.infradead.org/users/kmpark/linux-samsung v4l-fixes

for you to fetch changes up to 0e59db054e30658c6955d6e27b0a252cef9bfafc:

s5p-mfc: Fix second memory bank alignment (2012-08-16 19:12:19 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kamil Debski (1):
s5p-mfc: Fix second memory bank alignment

Sylwester Nawrocki (7):
s5p-fimc: Enable FIMC-LITE driver only for SOC_EXYNOS4x12
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-lite video device structure dynamically
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-capture video device dynamically
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-m2m video device dynamically
m5mols: Add missing free_irq() on error path
m5mols: Fix cast warnings from m5mols_[set/get]_ctrl_mode
s5p-fimc: Fix setup of initial links to FIMC entities

 drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols.h          |  4 +--
 drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols_controls.c |  4 +--
 drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols_core.c     |  4 ++-
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/Kconfig         |  2 +-
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-capture.c  | 31 +++++++-----------
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-core.h     |  4 +--
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite-reg.c |  2 +-
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite.c     | 42 ++++++++++---------------
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite.h     |  2 +-
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-m2m.c      | 40 ++++++++---------------
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-mdevice.c  |  9 ++++--
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-mdevice.h  |  6 ++--
 drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-reg.c      |  6 ++--
 drivers/media/video/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_ctrl.c   |  2 +-
 14 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)

Hi Mauro,

On 08/22/2012 10:32 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:

It's been almost 6 weeks since I sent this pull request, now Linus released 3.6 kernel and this series is not included there. Moreover, I have been waiting with all patches for 3.7 until those get merged. Now it seems even too late for all these 3.7 patches. I cannot say I'm very happy about this situation. It's rather disappointing it takes so long for -rc patches to make it upstream, especially that not all of them are supposed to be allowed during late -rc periods. I wouldn't bother writing this email but AFAIR it's not the first time my -rc patches got missed.

Is there anything I could do to improve this situation ?

Regards,
Sylwester

Quoted 28 lines

Hi Mauro,

The following changes since commit f9cd49033b349b8be3bb1f01b39eed837853d880:

   Merge tag 'v3.6-rc1' into staging/for_v3.6 (2012-08-03 22:41:33 -0300)

are available in the git repository at:

git://git.infradead.org/users/kmpark/linux-samsung v4l-fixes

for you to fetch changes up to 0e59db054e30658c6955d6e27b0a252cef9bfafc:

   s5p-mfc: Fix second memory bank alignment (2012-08-16 19:12:19 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kamil Debski (1):
s5p-mfc: Fix second memory bank alignment

Sylwester Nawrocki (7):
s5p-fimc: Enable FIMC-LITE driver only for SOC_EXYNOS4x12
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-lite video device structure dynamically
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-capture video device dynamically
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-m2m video device dynamically
m5mols: Add missing free_irq() on error path
m5mols: Fix cast warnings from m5mols_[set/get]_ctrl_mode
s5p-fimc: Fix setup of initial links to FIMC entities

Quoted 15 lines

  drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols.h          |  4 +--
  drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols_controls.c |  4 +--
  drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols_core.c     |  4 ++-
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/Kconfig         |  2 +-
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-capture.c  | 31 +++++++-----------
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-core.h     |  4 +--
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite-reg.c |  2 +-
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite.c     | 42 ++++++++++---------------
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite.h     |  2 +-
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-m2m.c      | 40 ++++++++---------------
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-mdevice.c  |  9 ++++--
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-mdevice.h  |  6 ++--
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-reg.c      |  6 ++--
  drivers/media/video/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_ctrl.c   |  2 +-
  14 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Hello
I have had similar problems too. We need badly find out better procedures for patch handling. Something like parches are updated about once per week to the master. I have found I lose quite much time rebasing and res-sending stuff all the time.

What I propose:
1) module maintainers sends all patches to the ML with some tag marking it will pull requested later. I used lately [PATCH RFC]
2) module maintainer will pick up all the "random" patches and pull request those. There is no way to mark patch as handled in patchwork....
3) PULL request are handled more often, like during one week or maximum two

regards
Antti

Quoted 67 lines · Sylwester Nawrocki

Hi Mauro,

On 08/22/2012 10:32 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:

It's been almost 6 weeks since I sent this pull request, now Linus released 3.6 kernel and this series is not included there. Moreover, I have been waiting with all patches for 3.7 until those get merged. Now it seems even too late for all these 3.7 patches. I cannot say I'm very happy about this situation. It's rather disappointing it takes so long for -rc patches to make it upstream, especially that not all of them are supposed to be allowed during late -rc periods. I wouldn't bother writing this email but AFAIR it's not the first time my -rc patches got missed.

Is there anything I could do to improve this situation ?

Regards,
Sylwester

Quoted 43 lines

Hi Mauro,

The following changes since commit f9cd49033b349b8be3bb1f01b39eed837853d880:

   Merge tag 'v3.6-rc1' into staging/for_v3.6 (2012-08-03 22:41:33 -0300)

are available in the git repository at:

git://git.infradead.org/users/kmpark/linux-samsung v4l-fixes

for you to fetch changes up to 0e59db054e30658c6955d6e27b0a252cef9bfafc:

   s5p-mfc: Fix second memory bank alignment (2012-08-16 19:12:19 +0200)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kamil Debski (1):
s5p-mfc: Fix second memory bank alignment

Sylwester Nawrocki (7):
s5p-fimc: Enable FIMC-LITE driver only for SOC_EXYNOS4x12
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-lite video device structure dynamically
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-capture video device dynamically
s5p-fimc: Don't allocate fimc-m2m video device dynamically
m5mols: Add missing free_irq() on error path
m5mols: Fix cast warnings from m5mols_[set/get]_ctrl_mode
s5p-fimc: Fix setup of initial links to FIMC entities

  drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols.h          |  4 +--
  drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols_controls.c |  4 +--
  drivers/media/video/m5mols/m5mols_core.c     |  4 ++-
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/Kconfig         |  2 +-
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-capture.c  | 31 +++++++-----------
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-core.h     |  4 +--
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite-reg.c |  2 +-
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite.c     | 42 ++++++++++---------------
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-lite.h     |  2 +-
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-m2m.c      | 40 ++++++++---------------
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-mdevice.c  |  9 ++++--
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-mdevice.h  |  6 ++--
  drivers/media/video/s5p-fimc/fimc-reg.c      |  6 ++--
  drivers/media/video/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_ctrl.c   |  2 +-
  14 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)

Signature · 3 lines

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Hi Anti/Sylwester,

Em 01-10-2012 08:50, Antti Palosaari escreveu:

Quoted 7 lines

Hello
I have had similar problems too. We need badly find out better procedures for patch handling. Something like parches are updated about once per week to the master. I have found I lose quite much time rebasing and res-sending stuff all the time.

What I propose:
1) module maintainers sends all patches to the ML with some tag marking it will pull requested later. I used lately [PATCH RFC]
2) module maintainer will pick up all the "random" patches and pull request those. There is no way to mark patch as handled in patchwork....
3) PULL request are handled more often, like during one week or maximum two

Yes, for sure we need to improve the workflow. After the return from KS, I found ~400 patches/pull requests on my queue. I'm working hard to get rid of that backlog, but still there are ~270 patches/pull requests on my queue today.

The thing is that patches come on a high rate at the ML, and there's no obvious way to discover what patches are just the normal patch review discussions (e. g. RFC) and what are real patches.

To make things worse, we have nowadays 494 drivers. A very few of those have an entry at MAINTAINERS, or a maintainer that care enough about his drivers to handle patches sent to the mailing list (even the trivial ones).

Due to the missing MAINTAINERS entries, all patches go through the ML directly, instead of going through the driver maintainer.

So, I need to manually review every single email that looks to have a patch inside, typically forwarding it to the driver maintainer, when it exists, handling them myself otherwise.

I'm counting with our discussions at the Barcelona's mini-summit in order to be able to get fresh ideas and discuss some alternatives to improve the patch workflow, but there are several things that could be done already, like the ones you've proposed, and keeping the MAINTAINERS file updated.

Mauro and folks,

Quoted 28 lines · Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Hi Anti/Sylwester,

Em 01-10-2012 08:50, Antti Palosaari escreveu:

Quoted 7 lines

Hello
I have had similar problems too. We need badly find out better procedures for patch handling. Something like parches are updated about once per week to the master. I have found I lose quite much time rebasing and res-sending stuff all the time.

What I propose:
1) module maintainers sends all patches to the ML with some tag marking it will pull requested later. I used lately [PATCH RFC]
2) module maintainer will pick up all the "random" patches and pull request those. There is no way to mark patch as handled in patchwork....
3) PULL request are handled more often, like during one week or maximum two

Yes, for sure we need to improve the workflow. After the return from KS, I found ~400 patches/pull requests on my queue. I'm working hard to get rid of that backlog, but still there are ~270 patches/pull requests on my queue today.

The thing is that patches come on a high rate at the ML, and there's no obvious way to discover what patches are just the normal patch review discussions (e. g. RFC) and what are real patches.

To make things worse, we have nowadays 494 drivers. A very few of those have an entry at MAINTAINERS, or a maintainer that care enough about his drivers to handle patches sent to the mailing list (even the trivial ones).

Due to the missing MAINTAINERS entries, all patches go through the ML directly, instead of going through the driver maintainer.

Quoted 9 lines

So, I need to manually review every single email that looks to have a patch inside, typically forwarding it to the driver maintainer, when it exists, handling them myself otherwise.

I'm counting with our discussions at the Barcelona's mini-summit in order to be able to get fresh ideas and discuss some alternatives to improve the patch workflow, but there are several things that could be done already, like the ones you've proposed, and keeping the MAINTAINERS file updated.

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't think there's an obvious solution for this,
unless more maintainers are willing to start providing reviews / tests / acks / etc.
for patches that arrive.

Seems to me media/ has become a truly large subsystem,
though I'm not sure how does it compare to others subsystems. Has anyone thought about breaking media/ down into smaller sub-subsystems, with respective sub-maintainer?

I'm not really sure if this should improve or worsen Mauro's rate.

Just my two cents,
Ezequiel.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Quoted 48 lines · On Mon October 1 2012 16:05:15 Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

Mauro and folks,

Quoted 28 lines · Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Hi Anti/Sylwester,

Em 01-10-2012 08:50, Antti Palosaari escreveu:

Quoted 7 lines

Hello
I have had similar problems too. We need badly find out better procedures for patch handling. Something like parches are updated about once per week to the master. I have found I lose quite much time rebasing and res-sending stuff all the time.

What I propose:
1) module maintainers sends all patches to the ML with some tag marking it will pull requested later. I used lately [PATCH RFC]
2) module maintainer will pick up all the "random" patches and pull request those. There is no way to mark patch as handled in patchwork....
3) PULL request are handled more often, like during one week or maximum two

Yes, for sure we need to improve the workflow. After the return from KS, I found ~400 patches/pull requests on my queue. I'm working hard to get rid of that backlog, but still there are ~270 patches/pull requests on my queue today.

The thing is that patches come on a high rate at the ML, and there's no obvious way to discover what patches are just the normal patch review discussions (e. g. RFC) and what are real patches.

To make things worse, we have nowadays 494 drivers. A very few of those have an entry at MAINTAINERS, or a maintainer that care enough about his drivers to handle patches sent to the mailing list (even the trivial ones).

Due to the missing MAINTAINERS entries, all patches go through the ML directly, instead of going through the driver maintainer.

Quoted 9 lines

So, I need to manually review every single email that looks to have a patch inside, typically forwarding it to the driver maintainer, when it exists, handling them myself otherwise.

I'm counting with our discussions at the Barcelona's mini-summit in order to be able to get fresh ideas and discuss some alternatives to improve the patch workflow, but there are several things that could be done already, like the ones you've proposed, and keeping the MAINTAINERS file updated.

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't think there's an obvious solution for this,
unless more maintainers are willing to start providing reviews / tests / acks / etc.
for patches that arrive.

Quoted 4 lines

Seems to me media/ has become a truly large subsystem,
though I'm not sure how does it compare to others subsystems. Has anyone thought about breaking media/ down into smaller sub-subsystems, with respective sub-maintainer?

Yes, and this will be discussed next month during the Media Summit.

Quoted 54 lines · Hans Verkuil

Quoted 52 lines · On Mon October 1 2012 16:05:15 Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

Mauro and folks,

Quoted 28 lines · Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Hi Anti/Sylwester,

Em 01-10-2012 08:50, Antti Palosaari escreveu:

Quoted 7 lines

Hello
I have had similar problems too. We need badly find out better procedures for patch handling. Something like parches are updated about once per week to the master. I have found I lose quite much time rebasing and res-sending stuff all the time.

What I propose:
1) module maintainers sends all patches to the ML with some tag marking it will pull requested later. I used lately [PATCH RFC]
2) module maintainer will pick up all the "random" patches and pull request those. There is no way to mark patch as handled in patchwork....
3) PULL request are handled more often, like during one week or maximum two

Yes, for sure we need to improve the workflow. After the return from KS, I found ~400 patches/pull requests on my queue. I'm working hard to get rid of that backlog, but still there are ~270 patches/pull requests on my queue today.

The thing is that patches come on a high rate at the ML, and there's no obvious way to discover what patches are just the normal patch review discussions (e. g. RFC) and what are real patches.

To make things worse, we have nowadays 494 drivers. A very few of those have an entry at MAINTAINERS, or a maintainer that care enough about his drivers to handle patches sent to the mailing list (even the trivial ones).

Due to the missing MAINTAINERS entries, all patches go through the ML directly, instead of going through the driver maintainer.

Quoted 9 lines

So, I need to manually review every single email that looks to have a patch inside, typically forwarding it to the driver maintainer, when it exists, handling them myself otherwise.

I'm counting with our discussions at the Barcelona's mini-summit in order to be able to get fresh ideas and discuss some alternatives to improve the patch workflow, but there are several things that could be done already, like the ones you've proposed, and keeping the MAINTAINERS file updated.

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't think there's an obvious solution for this,
unless more maintainers are willing to start providing reviews / tests / acks / etc.
for patches that arrive.

Seems to me media/ has become a truly large subsystem,
though I'm not sure how does it compare to others subsystems. Has anyone thought about breaking media/ down into smaller sub-subsystems, with respective sub-maintainer?

Quoted 1 line

Yes, and this will be discussed next month during the Media Summit.

Something like this came through my mind as well. It seems handling all the drivers/media stuff is becoming simply too much to tackle by one person in quality and timely manner.