Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] media: dt-bindings: ov5693: document YAML binding

[Tommaso Merciai <tommaso.merciai@amarulasolutions.com>]

Hi Sakari,

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 02:21:04PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:15:40AM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:
> > Hello
> > 
> > On 30/06/2022 11:09, Tommaso Merciai wrote:
> > > Hi Sakari,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 12:50:05PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > >> Hi Tommaso,
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:16:13AM +0200, Tommaso Merciai wrote:
> > >>> Hi Sakari,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 12:12:47PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:02:32AM +0200, Tommaso Merciai wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:07:19AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 30/06/2022 09:45, Tommaso Merciai wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Add documentation of device tree in YAML schema for the OV5693
> > >>>>>>> CMOS image sensor from Omnivision
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tommaso.merciai@amarulasolutions.com>
> > >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>
> > >>>>>> How Sakari's tag appeared here? There was no email from him.
> > >>>>> Sakari made me some review on v2, but I think he forgot to add the mailing
> > >>>>> list in cc. ( I suppose :) )
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Let me know if I need to remove this.
> > >>>> You're only supposed to put these tags into patches if you get them in
> > >>>> written form as part of the review, signalling acceptance of the patch in
> > >>>> various forms. Just commenting a patch does not imply this.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please also see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for more
> > >>>> information on how to use the tags.
> > >>> Thanks for sharing this. My bad.
> > >>> I remove your tags.
> > >> The patches themselves seem fine. I'd just drop the 4th patch or at least
> > >> come up with a better name for ov5693_hwcfg() --- you're acquiring
> > >> resources there, and that generally fits well for probe. The code is fine
> > >> already.
> > > Then we don't need v5 with your reviewed tags removed?
> > >
> > > I think the patch4 is needed to add dts support properly.
> > > Also this contains devm_clk_get_optional fix suggested by Jacopo and
> > > support for ACPI-based platforms that specify the clock frequency by
> > > using the "clock-frequency" property instead of specifying a clock
> > > provider reference.
> > 
> > 
> > I agree patch 4 in some form is needed - I didn't do the clock handling
> > particularly well in this driver, and though it's ostensibly an ACPI
> > driver it wouldn't actually work with a "normal" ACPI, but just with the
> > cio2-bridge-repaired style. So the changes to the clock handling logic
> > are welcome and needed I think. whether it needs to go into a separate
> > function I don't particularly mind either way.
> 
> Yes, the clock handling needs to be changed. But I'd keep it in probe.

Fixed in v5, as you suggest.
Thanks all for your time.

Regards,
Tommaso

> 
> -- 
> Sakari Ailus

-- 
Tommaso Merciai
Embedded Linux Engineer
tommaso.merciai@amarulasolutions.com
__________________________________

Amarula Solutions SRL
Via Le Canevare 30, 31100 Treviso, Veneto, IT
T. +39 042 243 5310
info@amarulasolutions.com
www.amarulasolutions.com