From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m718FtIv024080 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:15:55 -0400 Received: from mail.uni-paderborn.de (mail.uni-paderborn.de [131.234.142.9]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m718Ffd1022112 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:15:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4892C629.5000208@hni.uni-paderborn.de> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:15:37 +0200 From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guennadi Liakhovetski References: <294f0a37c4feadf87bf8.1217484144@carolinen.hni.uni-paderborn.de> <48917CB5.6000304@teltonika.lt> <4892A90B.7080309@hni.uni-paderborn.de> <4892BCD8.4010102@hni.uni-paderborn.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: video4linux-list@redhat.com, Paulius Zaleckas Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move .power and .reset from soc_camera platform to sensor driver List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: video4linux-list-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: video4linux-list-bounces@redhat.com List-ID: Guennadi Liakhovetski schrieb: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: > > >> Guennadi Liakhovetski schrieb: >> >>> As for calling either platform-provided reset or internal one. Actually, >>> whyt about making platform reset (and power too) return an error code, and >>> if it failed call th internal one? >>> >> At the moment I assume that reset and power will work, if they are defined, >> but we can change it. >> > > I'd rather preserve the possibility to use "soft" reset / poweroff also > when a platform function is defined. In fact, it might be even better to > do a soft power-off first and then call platform-provided one. Don't think > it would make much sense for reset though. > You are right, I'll change it with the next version. > >>> And as a parameter wouldn't it make more sense to pass the soc_camera_link >>> to the platform functions instead of the struct device from the i2c device? >>> >>> >> I have simple make the function similar to other platform_data functions on my >> system. >> At the moment I use the parameter only for printing messages via dev_err. >> > > You have to be able to trace which camera has to be resetted / powered on > or off in your platform code, and the camera_link structure is the object > that identifies a specific camera, ot, at least, it can be. Whereas the > device pointer doesn't easily tell you which camera you want to operate > upon. > If you use the same function for different sensors (camera_links), you are right, but you can get the camera_link from the dev pointer (.platform_data) if you need it. Regards Stefan -- Dipl.-Ing. Stefan Herbrechtsmeier Heinz Nixdorf Institute University of Paderborn System and Circuit Technology Fürstenallee 11 D-33102 Paderborn (Germany) office : F0.415 phone : + 49 5251 - 60 6342 fax : + 49 5251 - 60 6351 mailto : hbmeier@hni.upb.de www : http://wwwhni.upb.de/sct/mitarbeiter/hbmeier -- video4linux-list mailing list Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list