On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 07:46:34PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Am 26.06.2017 um 18:31 schrieb Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx>:
> >
> > Hi Hugues,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 05:05:38PM +0200, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
> >> @@ -1545,15 +1577,22 @@ static int ov965x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> >> }
> >>
> >> static const struct i2c_device_id ov965x_id[] = {
> >> - { "OV9650", 0 },
> >> - { "OV9652", 0 },
> >> + { "OV9650", 0x9650 },
> >> + { "OV9652", 0x9652 },
> >
> > This change does not appear to match with the patch description nor it the
> > information is used. How about not changing it, unless there's a reason to?
> > The same for the data field of the of_device_id array below.
>
> I think it could/should be used to check if the camera chip that is found
> by reading the product-id and version registers does match what the device
> tree expects and abort probing on a mismatch.
Makes sense. But it should be a separate patch, shouldn't it?
You could also put the id to the ops struct, and choose the ops struct that
way. Entirely up to you.
--
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
