Hi Wolfram,
Thanks for the feedback.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 8:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] media: i2c: ov5645: Move the register 0x3008 from
> ov5645_global_init_setting
>
> Hi Biju,
>
> > I think it is different here. That 1 msec is delay associated with
> > applying hardware power see [1]
>
> Okay, ack.
>
> > I will restore it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> I had meanwhile another thought. What if we kind of merge the two patches,
> so the outcome is basically this:
>
> In ov5645_set_register_array:
>
> If (settings->reg == 0x3008 && settings->val == 0x82)
> usleep_range(1000, 2000)
>
> ?
>
> Then, we don't need to split the array and we are also future proof if we
> ever need to set the reset bit again somewhere else.
>
> Bonus points for replacing 0x82 with a define :)
>
> What do you think?
OK, this will do check for all other registers.
But from your power down clue and checking ov5640.c
Looks like there are 2 registers changes values after writing.
[1] 0x3008, 0x82-->0x80
[2] 0x0601, 0x02-->0x00
I think [1] is soft reset based on ov5640. Since there is a gpio based hardware reset
available, we can safely remove soft reset[1] and like ov5640.c, if there is no
gpio for reset, then do the soft reset[1].
Then add 1msec delay for power down/up(0x3008: 0x42,0x02) and 0x0601 registers.
With this looks like the Camera works ok @400kHz.
The plans is to add a u8 variable for delay and enable delays for the above registers
and add a check like below
static int ov5645_set_register_array(struct ov5645 *ov5645,
const struct reg_value *settings,
unsigned int num_settings)
{
unsigned int i;
int ret;
for (i = 0; i < num_settings; ++i, ++settings) {
ret = ov5645_write_reg(ov5645, settings->reg, settings->val);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
if (settings->delay_ms)
usleep_range(1000 * settings->delay_ms, 2 * 1000 * settings->delay_ms);
}
return 0;
}
Please share your thoughts on this approach.
Cheers,
Biju
