Hi Krzysztof,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 03:13:11PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/07/2022 15:02, Alexander Stein wrote:
> > According to product brief they are identical from software point of view.
> > Differences are a different chief ray angle (CRA) and the package.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> > index 8a252bf3b59f..c8d83a29f9bb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> > @@ -1113,6 +1113,7 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops ov9282_pm_ops = {
> > };
> >
> > static const struct of_device_id ov9282_of_match[] = {
> > + { .compatible = "ovti,ov9281" },
>
> The devices seem entirely compatible, so why you add a new compatible
> and not re-use existing?
>
> The difference in lens does not explain this.
It is typically necessary to know what kind of related hardware can be
found in the system, beyond just the device's register interface. Apart
from USB cameras, less integrated cameras require low-level software
control in which specific device properties are important. In this case it
could be the lens shading table, among other things.
https://www.ovt.com/sensor/ov9282/
Therefore I think adding a specific compatible string for this one is
justified.
Also cc Laurent.
--
Kind regards,
Sakari Ailus
