On Fri 2017-06-16 01:07:00, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 09:41:29PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c > > index 4ca3fc9..b80debf 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c > > @@ -2026,7 +2026,7 @@ static int isp_fwnode_parse(struct device *dev, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, > > > > isd->bus = buscfg; > > > > - ret = v4l2_fwnode_endpoint_parse(fwn, vep); > > + ret = v4l2_fwnode_endpoint_parse(fwnode, &vep); > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > I just pushed the fix there. > > Btw. I think we should probably drop the change allocating the sub-device > configuration separately. It's better to associate the lens, flash and > eeprom (where it exists) to the sensor than to the CSI-2 receiver. In that > case there are no async sub-devices without bus configuration. Actually I thought about that a bit, and am not sure about that. CSI-2 receiver may not be good place to associate lens and flash with, agreed. But is sensor a good place? In particular, phones with two cameras cooperating (for example one black&white and one color) are getting common. It seems to be true that each sensor has a lens and autofocus motor associated, but flash LED is common, and both sensors are designed to work as one device. But yes, that's still better than placing it at CSI-2 receiver. But I guess we should make sure that flash LED can associated with more than one sensor, and maybe we should have some kind of "camera package" entity. Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
