On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:40:46AM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > One more thing I noticed while looking at your patch 3/4:
> >
> > > +static int pcm990_camera_set_bus_param(struct device *dev,
> > > + unsigned long flags)
> > > +{
> > > + if (gpio_bus_switch <= 0)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + if (flags & SOCAM_DATAWIDTH_8)
> > > + gpio_set_value(NR_BUILTIN_GPIO + 1, 1);
> > > + else
> > > + gpio_set_value(NR_BUILTIN_GPIO + 1, 0);
> >
> > Originally the logic here was "only if flags == SOCAM_DATAWIDTH_8, switch
> > to 8 bits, otherwise do 10 bits. I.e., if flags == SOCAM_DATAWIDTH_8 |
> > SOCAM_DATAWIDTH_10, it would still do the default (and wider) 10 bits. Do
> > you have any reason to change that logic?
>
> I was not aware that I changed any logic. I thought I would get here
> with only one of the SOCAM_DATAWIDTH_* set. Isn't it a bug when we get
> here with more than one width flags set?
>
> The mt9v022 driver has this in set_bus_param:
>
> >
> > /* Only one width bit may be set */
> > if (!is_power_of_2(width_flag))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
>
> And I think it makes sense.
Ok, then, could you, please add the same test to mt9m001? And, as I
mentioned in a comment to 3/4, please, return an error if switching is
requested but unsupported.
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
