lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [v1 3/3] media: ov8856: Implement sensor module revision identification
Hey Andy,

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 15:30, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 02:46:03PM +0100, Robert Foss wrote:
> > Query the sensor for its module revision, and compare it
> > to known revisions.
> > Currently only the '1B' revision has been added.
>
> Are you sure you send latest version?
>
> I have a déją vu that I have seen this already and this one doesn't address any
> comment given.

I think pulled a series Dongchun Zhus earlier series apart and used some of it,
I may have missed some of the feedback given to his v3. Sorry about that.

>
> ...
>
> > + dev_info(&client->dev, "OV8856 revision %x (%s) at address 0x%02x\n",
> > + val,
>
> > + val == OV8856_1B_MODULE ? "1B" : "unknown revision",
>
> This is weird. Can you add a bit more general way of showing revision?

This is modeled after the ov7251 driver, since that output came in
handy during bringup.

dev_info(dev, "OV7251 revision %x (%s) detected at address 0x%02x\n",
chip_rev,
chip_rev == 0x4 ? "1A / 1B" :
chip_rev == 0x5 ? "1C / 1D" :
chip_rev == 0x6 ? "1E" :
chip_rev == 0x7 ? "1F" : "unknown",
client->addr);

To me this is pretty general approach, at least until this revision
information is used in other places.
I'm not quite sure what you had in mind. Maybe the current
implementation is a little bit clunky in the case of ov8856 since
there's only one revision number known currently.

Either way, I'll happily change it. But I don't quite know what you
have in mind.

>
> > + client->addr);
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-12 17:38    [W:0.070 / U:0.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site