On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:03:10PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:58:48AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 11:14:29AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 10:39:13AM +0530, shravan kumar wrote:
> > > > From: Shravan Chippa <shravan.chippa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > > @@ -666,11 +885,26 @@ static int imx334_init_pad_cfg(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > > > struct v4l2_subdev_format fmt = { 0 };
> > > >
> > > > fmt.which = sd_state ? V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_TRY : V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_ACTIVE;
> > > > - imx334_fill_pad_format(imx334, &supported_mode, &fmt);
> > > > + imx334_fill_pad_format(imx334, &supported_modes[0], &fmt);
> > >
> > > Now that there are multiple modes supported, this would appear to get the
> > > width, height as well as the other fields (apart from mbus code) from the
> > > first mode.
> >
> > Is this statement supposed to be a request to change something, or just
> > a throwaway comment? It's a little hard for me to understand your
> > intention here, sorry.
>
> Just pointing to what looks like a bug.
Ah, my bad. Please ignore the comment.
This is indeed about init_cfg(), not s_fmt().
--
Sakari Ailus
