Hello Shunqian,
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:06:05AM +0800, Shunqian Zheng wrote:
[snip]
> +static int __ov5695_start_stream(struct ov5695 *ov5695)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = ov5695_write_array(ov5695->client, ov5695_global_regs);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + ret = ov5695_write_array(ov5695->client, ov5695->cur_mode->reg_list);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* In case these controls are set before streaming */
> + ret = __v4l2_ctrl_handler_setup(&ov5695->ctrl_handler);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return ov5695_write_reg(ov5695->client, OV5695_REG_CTRL_MODE,
> + OV5695_REG_VALUE_08BIT, OV5695_MODE_STREAMING);
> +}
> +
> +static int __ov5695_stop_stream(struct ov5695 *ov5695)
> +{
> + return ov5695_write_reg(ov5695->client, OV5695_REG_CTRL_MODE,
> + OV5695_REG_VALUE_08BIT, OV5695_MODE_SW_STANDBY);
> +}
> +
> +static int ov5695_s_stream(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int on)
> +{
> + struct ov5695 *ov5695 = to_ov5695(sd);
> + struct i2c_client *client = ov5695->client;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&ov5695->mutex);
> + on = !!on;
> + if (on == ov5695->streaming)
> + goto unlock_and_return;
> +
> + if (on) {
> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(&client->dev);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + pm_runtime_put_noidle(&client->dev);
> + goto unlock_and_return;
> + }
> +
> + ret = __ov5695_start_stream(ov5695);
> + if (ret) {
> + v4l2_err(sd, "start stream failed while write regs\n");
> + pm_runtime_put(&client->dev);
> + goto unlock_and_return;
> + }
> + } else {
> + __ov5695_stop_stream(ov5695);
> + ret = pm_runtime_put(&client->dev);
I would return the result of __ov5695_stop_stream() instead of
pm_runtime_put().
I know I asked for this, but if the first s_stream(0) fails, the
sensor may not have been stopped but the interface will be put in
"streaming = 0" state, preventing a second s_stream(0) to be issued
because of your check "on == ov5695->streaming" a few lines above.
I can't tell how bad this is. Imho is acceptable but I would like to
hear someone else opinion here :)
> + }
> +
> + ov5695->streaming = on;
> +
> +unlock_and_return:
> + mutex_unlock(&ov5695->mutex);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +
[snip]
> +static const struct of_device_id ov5695_of_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "ovti,ov5695" },
> + {},
> +};
If you don't list CONFIG_OF as a dependecy for this driver (which you
should not imho), please guard this with:
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)
#endif
> +
> +static struct i2c_driver ov5695_i2c_driver = {
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "ov5695",
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + .pm = &ov5695_pm_ops,
> + .of_match_table = ov5695_of_match
> + },
> + .probe = &ov5695_probe,
> + .remove = &ov5695_remove,
> +};
> +
> +module_i2c_driver(ov5695_i2c_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("OmniVision ov5695 sensor driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
As you've fixed my comments on v1, and with the above bits addressed:
Reviewed-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks
j
> --
> 1.9.1
>
--
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
