Hi Sakari, On Saturday 02 November 2013 23:43:02 Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 03:06:41PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:31:26PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > Hi Sakari, > > > > ... > > > > > > > If the chip is powered on constantly, why do we need a .s_power() > > > > > subdev > > > > > operation at all ? > > > > > > > > I don't know why was it there in the first place. Probably to make it > > > > easier to use the driver on boards that required e.g. a regulator for > > > > the chip. > > > > > > > > But typically they're connected to battery directly. The idle power > > > > consumption is just some tens of µA. > > > > > > What about on the N9 ? > > > > That function pointer is NULL for N9. I used to configure the GPIOs but > > that was wrong in the first place. > > Ping. > > Should we either remove the s_power() callback altogether or just the > platform data callback function (which is unused)? > > It is indeed possible that the device was powered from a regulator which > isn't always on but we don't have such use cases right now. I would remove the platform callback only. The s_power() function currently turns the torch when called to disable power, which is a sane thing to do. Your patch moves that to the call sites, but I believe it would be easier to keep the current __as3645a_set_power() function, especially if we later need to add support for regulators. Would that be fine with you ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
