On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:15:40AM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > Hello > > On 30/06/2022 11:09, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > Hi Sakari, > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 12:50:05PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >> Hi Tommaso, > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:16:13AM +0200, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > >>> Hi Sakari, > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 12:12:47PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:02:32AM +0200, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:07:19AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>>> On 30/06/2022 09:45, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > >>>>>>> Add documentation of device tree in YAML schema for the OV5693 > >>>>>>> CMOS image sensor from Omnivision > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tommaso.merciai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> > >>>>>> How Sakari's tag appeared here? There was no email from him. > >>>>> Sakari made me some review on v2, but I think he forgot to add the mailing > >>>>> list in cc. ( I suppose :) ) > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me know if I need to remove this. > >>>> You're only supposed to put these tags into patches if you get them in > >>>> written form as part of the review, signalling acceptance of the patch in > >>>> various forms. Just commenting a patch does not imply this. > >>>> > >>>> Please also see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for more > >>>> information on how to use the tags. > >>> Thanks for sharing this. My bad. > >>> I remove your tags. > >> The patches themselves seem fine. I'd just drop the 4th patch or at least > >> come up with a better name for ov5693_hwcfg() --- you're acquiring > >> resources there, and that generally fits well for probe. The code is fine > >> already. > > Then we don't need v5 with your reviewed tags removed? > > > > I think the patch4 is needed to add dts support properly. > > Also this contains devm_clk_get_optional fix suggested by Jacopo and > > support for ACPI-based platforms that specify the clock frequency by > > using the "clock-frequency" property instead of specifying a clock > > provider reference. > > > I agree patch 4 in some form is needed - I didn't do the clock handling > particularly well in this driver, and though it's ostensibly an ACPI > driver it wouldn't actually work with a "normal" ACPI, but just with the > cio2-bridge-repaired style. So the changes to the clock handling logic > are welcome and needed I think. whether it needs to go into a separate > function I don't particularly mind either way. Yes, the clock handling needs to be changed. But I'd keep it in probe. -- Sakari Ailus
