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

[Tommaso Merciai]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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.

Some suggestion on the function name?

Thanks,
Tommaso

> 
> -- 
> Sakari Ailus

-- 
Tommaso Merciai
Embedded Linux Engineer
tommaso.merciai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
__________________________________

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