Quoting Laurentiu Palcu (2022-03-09 09:29:44) > Hi Jacopo, > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:43:11AM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > Hi Laurentiu, > > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:55:49PM +0200, Laurentiu Palcu wrote: > > > The subdevice entity function was left unset, which produces a warning > > > when probing the device: > > > > > > mxc-md bus@58000000:camera: Entity type for entity rdacm20 19-0051 was > > > not initialized! > > > > > > Also, set the entity flags to MEDIA_ENT_FL_DEFAULT instead of > > > MEDIA_ENT_F_CAM_SENSOR which will be used for entity's function instead. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Palcu <laurentiu.palcu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Hi, > > > > > > Only tested the rdacm20 part but I believe rdacm21 should work as well. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > laurentiu > > > > > > drivers/media/i2c/rdacm20.c | 3 ++- > > > drivers/media/i2c/rdacm21.c | 3 ++- > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm20.c b/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm20.c > > > index 025a610de893..ea5b7d5151ee 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm20.c > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm20.c > > > @@ -611,7 +611,8 @@ static int rdacm20_probe(struct i2c_client *client) > > > goto error_free_ctrls; > > > > > > dev->pad.flags = MEDIA_PAD_FL_SOURCE; > > > - dev->sd.entity.flags |= MEDIA_ENT_F_CAM_SENSOR; > > > + dev->sd.entity.flags |= MEDIA_ENT_FL_DEFAULT; > > > > I'm not sure if setting the DEFAULT flag is right: > > > > * %MEDIA_ENT_FL_DEFAULT > > * indicates the default entity for a given type. > > * This can be used to report the default audio and video devices or the > > * default camera sensor. > > > > In a typical setup there will be several RDACM2x in use, marking all > > of them as "default" seems not right (if I understood the flag > > description right). > > My initial thought was to not set the entity flags at all. However, > since the old code had the flags set to MEDIA_ENT_F_CAM_SENSOR which is, > essentially, 0x20001, setting it to MEDIA_ENT_FL_DEFAULT (1 << 0) would > mean, basically, the same thing and would not affect existing user apps > that might already probe that flag... Removing the flag now might > potentially break existing apps. :/ > > Are there any other opinions on this one? I don't think it's right to add an incorrect flag, and I don't think any application should have been relying on this. The only place an application should check for MEDIA_ENT_F_CAM_SENSOR is in the entity function. -- Kieran > > > > > > > + dev->sd.entity.function = MEDIA_ENT_F_CAM_SENSOR; > > > > This seems right, and it's probably worth a Fixes tag? > > I'll send a v2 with the Fixes tag which I meant to add but totally > forgot... > > Cheers, > Laurentiu > > > > > Thanks > > j > > > > > ret = media_entity_pads_init(&dev->sd.entity, 1, &dev->pad); > > > if (ret < 0) > > > goto error_free_ctrls; > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm21.c b/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm21.c > > > index 12ec5467ed1e..be89bd43e88b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm21.c > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/rdacm21.c > > > @@ -583,7 +583,8 @@ static int rdacm21_probe(struct i2c_client *client) > > > goto error_free_ctrls; > > > > > > dev->pad.flags = MEDIA_PAD_FL_SOURCE; > > > - dev->sd.entity.flags |= MEDIA_ENT_F_CAM_SENSOR; > > > + dev->sd.entity.flags |= MEDIA_ENT_FL_DEFAULT; > > > + dev->sd.entity.function = MEDIA_ENT_F_CAM_SENSOR; > > > ret = media_entity_pads_init(&dev->sd.entity, 1, &dev->pad); > > > if (ret < 0) > > > goto error_free_ctrls; > > > -- > > > 2.33.0 > > >
