On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 14:12 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > +struct as3645a { > > > + struct v4l2_subdev subdev; > > > + struct as3645a_platform_data *platform_data; > > > + > > > + struct mutex power_lock; > > > + int power_count; > > > + > > > + /* Static parameters */ > > > + u8 vref; > > > + u8 peak; > > > + > > > + /* Controls */ > > > + struct v4l2_ctrl_handler ctrls; > > > + > > > + enum v4l2_flash_led_mode led_mode; > > > + unsigned int timeout; > > > + u8 flash_current; > > > + u8 assist_current; > > > + u8 indicator_current; > > > + enum v4l2_flash_strobe_source strobe_source; > > > > Do you think we should store this information in the controls instead, > > or not? > > I've been thinking about that as well. The reason why the control values were > copied to the as3645a structure is that they were accessed in timer context, > where taking the control lock wasn't possible. > > I could switch to accessing the information in controls directly now, but that > would require storing pointers to the controls in the as3645a structure, which > might not be that better :-) And the code will need to change back to storing > values when overheat protection will be implemented anyway. If you still think > it's better, I can change it. We don't need to solve the issue which is absent. We have in-kernel adp1653 driver w/o overheat protection. It requires to be updated anyway. I prefer to update drivers in common way when we will have overheat protection framework in place. > > > + switch (man) { > > > + case 1: > > > + factory = "AMS, Austria Micro Systems"; > > > + break; > > > + case 2: > > > + factory = "ADI, Analog Devices Inc."; > > > + break; > > > + case 3: > > > + factory = "NSC, National Semiconductor"; > > > + break; > > > + case 4: > > > + factory = "NXP"; > > > + break; > > > + case 5: > > > + factory = "TI, Texas Instrument"; > > > + break; > > > + default: > > > + factory = "Unknown"; > > > + } > > > + > > > + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Factory: %s(%d) Version: %d\n", factory, man, > > > + version); > > > > Is that really a factor or is it the chip vendor --- which might > > contract another factory to actually manufacture the chips? > > I don't know :-) I guess the vendor is proper word here. For example, lm3555 (NSC) is slightly different from as3645a. And why dev_dbg? I think dev_info here might be suitable. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html