On Mon, 2022-07-11 at 10:16 +0200, Alexander Stein wrote:
> Apparently the Vision Components model (VC MIPI OV9281) does not
> support
> address auto-increment, so probe fails with:
> ov9282 2-0060: chip id mismatch: 9281!=92ff
> Instead two a 1 byte reads to combine the result.
I think some word is missing from this last statement.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> index c3faf11a99b5..c507d9d4531a 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> @@ -761,11 +761,16 @@ static int ov9282_set_stream(struct v4l2_subdev
> *sd, int enable)
> static int ov9282_detect(struct ov9282 *ov9282)
> {
> int ret;
> + u32 id[2];
> u32 val;
>
> - ret = ov9282_read_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_ID, 2, &val);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> + ret = ov9282_read_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_ID + 1,
> + 1, &id[1]);
Please add a comment explaining why reading one byte at a time is
needed.
> + if (!ret)
> + ret = ov9282_read_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_ID,
> + 1, &id[0]);
Shouldn't we return in case of error? As the original code was doing?
> + val = id[1];
> + val |= (id[0] << 8);
>
> if (val != OV9282_ID) {
> dev_err(ov9282->dev, "chip id mismatch: %x!=%x",
