Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] media: i2c: add os02g10 image sensor driver

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 02:06:20PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 6/18/26 09:22, Elgin Perumbilly wrote:
> > Hi Vladimir,
> >   
> > Thank you for the review.
> >   
> > I have addressed all of the comments except for two, where I am not entirely
> > sure about the requested changes. Could you please take a look at the points
> > below and let me know your opinion?
> >   
> >> On 4/24/26 12:25, Elgin Perumbilly wrote:
> >>> Add a v4l2 subdevice driver for the Omnivision os02g10 sensor.
> >>>
> >>> The Omnivision os02g10 is a CMOS image sensor with an active array size of
> >>> 1920 x 1080.
> >>>
> >>> The following features are supported:
> >>> - Manual exposure an gain control support
> >>> - vblank/hblank control support
> >>> - vflip/hflip control support
> >>> - Test pattern control support
> >>> - Supported resolution: 1920 x 1080 @ 30fps (SBGGR10)
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Elgin Perumbilly <elgin.perumbilly@siliconsignals.io>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Tarang Raval <tarang.raval@siliconsignals.io>
> >   
> > ...
> >   
> >>> +#include <linux/array_size.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/container_of.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/err.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/i2c.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/module.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/property.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/units.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/time.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> >>
> >> Please sort the list of includes in alphabetical order, also you
> >> may consider to shrink the list by removing quite many inherited
> >> includes.
> >   
> > Some maintainers prefer the "include what you use" approach, like Andy,
> > so I added all the headers that are directly used. Should I now remove
> > any inherited includes?
> 
> Yes, here opinions may vary, that's why I asked for sorting and to

Sorting is a good idea.

> consider to remove some of the redundant headers. In my personal opinion
> this type of excessive information is not needed, especially if it is
> justified only by probable and far future trivial clean-up work.

I typically ask for a "include what you use" approach too, to avoid
build breakages. It's not only a matter of future work, but indirect
includes can also vary based on the kernel configuration (and the
architecture).

> >>> +#include <media/v4l2-cci.h>
> >>> +#include <media/v4l2-ctrls.h>
> >>> +#include <media/v4l2-device.h>
> >>> +#include <media/v4l2-fwnode.h>
> >>> +#include <media/v4l2-mediabus.h>
> >   
> > ...
> >   
> >>> +static int os02g10_set_framefmt(struct os02g10 *os02g10,
> >>> +                             struct v4l2_subdev_state *state)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     const struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt *format;
> >>> +     const struct os02g10_mode *mode;
> >>> +     int ret = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> +     format = v4l2_subdev_state_get_format(state, 0);
> >>> +     mode = v4l2_find_nearest_size(supported_modes,
> >>> +                                   ARRAY_SIZE(supported_modes), width,
> >>> +                                   height, format->width, format->height);
> >>> +
> >>> +     cci_write(os02g10->cci, OS02G10_REG_V_START, mode->y_start, &ret);
> >>> +     cci_write(os02g10->cci, OS02G10_REG_V_SIZE, mode->height, &ret);
> >>> +     cci_write(os02g10->cci, OS02G10_REG_V_SIZE_MIPI, mode->height, &ret);
> >>> +     cci_write(os02g10->cci, OS02G10_REG_H_START, mode->x_start, &ret);
> >>> +     cci_write(os02g10->cci, OS02G10_REG_H_SIZE, mode->width, &ret);
> >>> +     cci_write(os02g10->cci, OS02G10_REG_H_SIZE_MIPI, mode->width, &ret);
> >>> +
> >>> +     return ret;
> >>
> >> Just "return 0" here, and remove the local variable.
> >   
> > Could you clarify why this should return 0? The local ret is passed to all
> > cci_write() calls so that any write error is propagated. Returning 0 here
> > would appear to suppress those errors and always report success.
> 
> My bad, yes, here please leave 'return ret' as is, I was confused and
> misleaded by initialization of the local variable to zero, which is
> redundant, and I'd suggest to remove this initialization.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart