Sascha Hauer wrote:

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 09:10:03PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

quoted

If there are no other problems with v5, could we maybe take it as a basis
and then I would submit a patch to reduce the number of IRQs?

Please understand my concerns with this driver. It's a quite complex
beast and experience shows that once a driver is in the kernel it is far
more complicated to change it than to do it right the first way. You
know that I'm also interested in having a MX31 framebuffer (and camera)
driver in kernel but I want to make sure that it works properly and leaves
room for feature enhancements without having to refactor the whole
driver.
It would be good if someone else could throw his 2 cents into this
discussion.

I have been on holiday since last week and I don't really have time to 
comment on all this until my return from great ski weeks, but I have 
been following the discussion very attentively and I will for sure test 
and comment on these patches (camera is very important for our 
application) as soon as I get back to work in January.

It's a bit tricky with this merge window in the "middle" of holidays for me.

Valentin

-- 
Valentin Longchamp, PhD Student, EPFL-STI-LSRO1
valentin.longchamp@epfl.ch, Phone: +41216937827
http://people.epfl.ch/valentin.longchamp
MEA3485, Station 9, CH-1015 Lausanne

-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
FAQ:        http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php
Etiquette:  http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php