Hi,
On Friday, April 20, 2018 04:15 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:44:18AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> struct ov5640_ctrls {
>> struct v4l2_ctrl_handler handler;
>> + struct {
>> + struct v4l2_ctrl *link_freq;
>> + struct v4l2_ctrl *pixel_rate;
>> + };
>> struct {
>> struct v4l2_ctrl *auto_exp;
>> struct v4l2_ctrl *exposure;
>> @@ -732,6 +752,8 @@ static const struct ov5640_mode_info ov5640_mode_init_data = {
>> .dn_mode = SUBSAMPLING,
>> .width = 640,
>> .height = 480,
>> + .pixel_rate = 27766666,
>> + .link_freq_idx = OV5640_LINK_FREQ_111,
>
> I'm not sure where this is coming from, but on a parallel sensor I
> have a quite different pixel rate.
Ah, interesting. What exactly do you mean by 'parallel'? What kind of
module is that, and what are your pixel rates?
> I have a serie ongoing that tries to deal with this, hopefully in
> order to get rid of all the clock setup done in the initialiasation
> array.
>
> See https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/48710/ for the patch and
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg132201.html for a
> discussion on what the clock tree might look like on a MIPI-CSI bus.
Okay, nice. Even better if this patch isn't needed in the end.
Thanks!
Daniel
