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

[Sakari Ailus]

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@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.
> 
> 
> 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.

-- 
Sakari Ailus