Hi Sakari,
Em Fri, 31 May 2019 14:27:24 +0300
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 03:25:18PM -0400, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > From: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx>
As stated here, this patch is not really mine. It is a rebased version of a
patch that was delegated to a sub-maintainer, being on his queue for more
than 2 years.
> >
> > In the soc_camera removal, the board specific power callback was
> > dropped. This at least will remove the power optimization from ezx and
> > em-x270 pxa based boards.
> >
> > As to recreate the same level of functionality, make the mt9m111 have a
> > regulator providing it its power, so that board designers can plug in a
> > gpio based or ldo regulator, mimicking their former soc_camera power
> > hook.
> >
> > Fixes: 5c10113cc668 ("media: mt9m111: make a standalone v4l2 subdevice")
> >
> > [mchehab+samsung@xxxxxxxxxx: check return values for regulator_enable and
> > fix a build warning]
> > Signed-off-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > This is a respin of this patch:
> >
> > http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/37950/
> >
> > rebased (and fixed) to apply on the top of upstream.
> >
> > While checking old patches at the ML, I noticed that this patch
> > was never applied:
> >
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1238720.html
> >
> > The first patch of this series got applied, though:
> >
> > c771f42fed7f ("[media] media: platform: pxa_camera: add missing sensor power on")
> >
> > So, I'm closing the original patch as obsoleted and I'm sending this
> > one to the ML for tests.
> >
> > Can anyone test this patch and send a tested-by?
> >
> > drivers/media/i2c/mt9m111.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m111.c b/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m111.c
> > index 5168bb5880c4..746d1345b505 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m111.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m111.c
> > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > #include <linux/log2.h>
> > #include <linux/gpio.h>
> > #include <linux/delay.h>
> > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> > #include <linux/v4l2-mediabus.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/property.h>
> > @@ -243,6 +244,7 @@ struct mt9m111 {
> > int power_count;
> > const struct mt9m111_datafmt *fmt;
> > int lastpage; /* PageMap cache value */
> > + struct regulator *regulator;
> > bool is_streaming;
> > /* user point of view - 0: falling 1: rising edge */
> > unsigned int pclk_sample:1;
> > @@ -982,6 +984,12 @@ static int mt9m111_power_on(struct mt9m111 *mt9m111)
> > if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> >
> > + if (mt9m111->regulator) {
> > + ret = regulator_enable(mt9m111->regulator);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > ret = mt9m111_resume(mt9m111);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > dev_err(&client->dev, "Failed to resume the sensor: %d\n", ret);
> > @@ -994,6 +1002,8 @@ static int mt9m111_power_on(struct mt9m111 *mt9m111)
> > static void mt9m111_power_off(struct mt9m111 *mt9m111)
> > {
> > mt9m111_suspend(mt9m111);
> > + if (mt9m111->regulator)
>
> You could omit this check, same for the above. As Mita-san explained, it
> falls back to using the dummy regulator if there isn't one defined.
>
> > + regulator_disable(mt9m111->regulator);
Makes sense to me.
Feel free to remove it and apply on your tree.
> > v4l2_clk_disable(mt9m111->clk);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1256,6 +1266,13 @@ static int mt9m111_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > if (IS_ERR(mt9m111->clk))
> > return PTR_ERR(mt9m111->clk);
> >
> > + mt9m111->regulator = devm_regulator_get(&client->dev, "vdd");
> > + if (IS_ERR(mt9m111->regulator)) {
> > + dev_err(&client->dev, "regulator not found: %ld\n",
> > + PTR_ERR(mt9m111->regulator));
> > + return PTR_ERR(mt9m111->regulator);
> > + }
> > +
> > /* Default HIGHPOWER context */
> > mt9m111->ctx = &context_b;
> >
>
Thanks,
Mauro
