On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, morimoto.kuninori@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > Guys, are you both sure this should be SLAVE, not MASTER? Have you tested > > > it? Both tw9910 and ov772x register themselves as MASTER and from the > > Of course I tested it. Yes, as I said, I have overseen the fact, that soc-camera doesn't currently check for master / slave mode, so it would work for you even with a wrong setting. Sorry again. > > Ok, sorry, you, probably, did test it and it worked, but just because the > > SLAVE / MASTER flag is not tested in soc_camera_bus_param_compatible(), > > which I should fix with the next pull, but this does look wrong. Please, > > fix. > > Hmm. I should have asked you what is MASTER/SLAVE before sending patch. > I suspect it it about who generates the clock signal > either the camera or the host. > Our CEU does not support any clock generation so it is always SLAVE. > Therefore I didn't support MASTER for CEU. > > But it seems wrong understanding... > I would like ask you What MASTER/SLAVE means ? MASTER / SLAVE means not the role of the respective device, but the mode. Master mode means the camera sensor / decoder / whatever other client is the master, i.e., generates the pixel clock and sync signals, the slave mode means, that the host generates all sync signals. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
