Hi Niklas, On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 06:09:23PM +0100, Niklas Söderlund wrote: > Hello Laurentiu, > > Thanks for your work. > > On 2024-12-19 17:06:42 +0200, Laurentiu Palcu wrote: > > The current implementation has the register disabled since it is not > > documented in the MAX96724 RM. However, in the chip's user's guide [1], > > in the Video Pattern Generator section, the register is documented and > > it appears to work just fine. Before the change I was experiencing > > approx 10fps when streaming, after: 30.3fps. > > > > [1] https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/user-guides/max96724fr-user-guide.pdf > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Palcu <laurentiu.palcu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/staging/media/max96712/max96712.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/max96712/max96712.c b/drivers/staging/media/max96712/max96712.c > > index 5228f9ec60859..682ebd20851f7 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/media/max96712/max96712.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/media/max96712/max96712.c > > @@ -462,6 +462,7 @@ static const struct max96712_info max96712_info_max96712 = { > > > > static const struct max96712_info max96712_info_max96724 = { > > .dpllfreq = 1200, > > + .have_debug_extra = true, > > This flag was added as I could not find the register in the MAX96724 > datasheet I had access to at the time. As you now prove the register > exists in the user's guide and that it works I think a better solution > is to remove the 'have_debug_extra' flag all together then set it for > both supported devices. Ok, makes sense. I guess I was thinking of having this driver support other chips as well in the future and that's why I left it there, for chip variants that don't actually have it. But, on the other hand, it could always be added later if needed. I'll send a v2 with the flag removed. Thanks, Laurentiu > > > }; > > > > static const struct of_device_id max96712_of_table[] = { > > -- > > 2.44.1 > > > > -- > Kind Regards, > Niklas Söderlund
