Hi Sakari, On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 02:21:04PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:15:40AM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > > Hello > > > > On 30/06/2022 11:09, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > > Hi Sakari, > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 12:50:05PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > >> Hi Tommaso, > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:16:13AM +0200, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > >>> Hi Sakari, > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 12:12:47PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:02:32AM +0200, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:07:19AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >>>>>> On 30/06/2022 09:45, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > >>>>>>> Add documentation of device tree in YAML schema for the OV5693 > > >>>>>>> CMOS image sensor from Omnivision > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tommaso.merciai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> > > >>>>>> How Sakari's tag appeared here? There was no email from him. > > >>>>> Sakari made me some review on v2, but I think he forgot to add the mailing > > >>>>> list in cc. ( I suppose :) ) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Let me know if I need to remove this. > > >>>> You're only supposed to put these tags into patches if you get them in > > >>>> written form as part of the review, signalling acceptance of the patch in > > >>>> various forms. Just commenting a patch does not imply this. > > >>>> > > >>>> Please also see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for more > > >>>> information on how to use the tags. > > >>> Thanks for sharing this. My bad. > > >>> I remove your tags. > > >> The patches themselves seem fine. I'd just drop the 4th patch or at least > > >> come up with a better name for ov5693_hwcfg() --- you're acquiring > > >> resources there, and that generally fits well for probe. The code is fine > > >> already. > > > Then we don't need v5 with your reviewed tags removed? > > > > > > I think the patch4 is needed to add dts support properly. > > > Also this contains devm_clk_get_optional fix suggested by Jacopo and > > > support for ACPI-based platforms that specify the clock frequency by > > > using the "clock-frequency" property instead of specifying a clock > > > provider reference. > > > > > > I agree patch 4 in some form is needed - I didn't do the clock handling > > particularly well in this driver, and though it's ostensibly an ACPI > > driver it wouldn't actually work with a "normal" ACPI, but just with the > > cio2-bridge-repaired style. So the changes to the clock handling logic > > are welcome and needed I think. whether it needs to go into a separate > > function I don't particularly mind either way. > > Yes, the clock handling needs to be changed. But I'd keep it in probe. Fixed in v5, as you suggest. Thanks all for your time. Regards, Tommaso > > -- > Sakari Ailus -- Tommaso Merciai Embedded Linux Engineer tommaso.merciai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx __________________________________ Amarula Solutions SRL Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT T. +39 042 243 5310 info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.amarulasolutions.com
