averne has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
averne has joined #tegra
averne has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
averne has joined #tegra
marvin24_ has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
marvin24 has joined #tegra
dcz has joined #tegra
camus has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
camus has joined #tegra
Guest8062 has joined #tegra
Guest8062 has quit [Quit: Client closed]
thumbcore[m] has joined #tegra
<thumbcore[m]> It seems to me like it could be simpler if the DTS simply stated `compatible = "nvidia,imx219";` and did _not_ specify camera modes. The driver would provide an interface for querying that mode information, so there's just one source of truth.
<thumbcore[m]> Why is camera data basically replicated in both a driver (the mode data tables) and the board's device tree? It's even worse in the device tree because that mode data is replicated for each instance of the camera!
<kwizart> thumbcore[m], is this upstream context ? (see topic)
dcz has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
dcz has joined #tegra
dcz has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
dcz has joined #tegra
dcz has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
dcz has joined #tegra
dcz has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
dcz has joined #tegra
<thumbcore[m]> My question is asking about implementation decisions in L4T. Topic says "NVIDIA Tegra discussion" so this seems like it fits. Did I misinterpret? Apologies if so.
<kwizart> thumbcore[m], you will have more chance to ask on the linked forum, here is mostly addressed concern for upstream kernel tegra dev...
camus1 has joined #tegra
camus has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
camus1 is now known as camus
marvin24 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
marvin24 has joined #tegra
dcz has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
tmn505 has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
dcz has joined #tegra
tmn505 has joined #tegra