Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] media: i2c: add os05b10 image sensor driver

["sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com" <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Himanshu,

On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 06:10:09AM +0000, Himanshu Bhavani wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
> >
> >On Thu, Jan 01, 2026 at 06:19:02AM +0000, Himanshu Bhavani wrote:
> >> >> +#define OS05B10_PIXEL_RATE           (480 * HZ_PER_MHZ)
> >> >
> >> >Here pixel rate should not be hardcoded, it'd be computed in runtime
> >> >as 600MHz * 2 * 4 lanes / 10 bpp = 480MHz.
> >> >
> >> >The sensor may be wired over 2 lanes or (presumably) it can stream 8 bpp data.
> >>
> >> We are not supporting 2 lanes right now, driver supports only for 4 lanes and
> >> 10 bpp data. So technically OS05B10_PIXEL_RATE will never change.
> >> For reference I will add OS05B10_PIXEL_RATE calculation in comments.
> >> I would prefer the hardcoded at the moment. Other than this comment
> >> I will resolve and send new version.
> >
> >The pixel rate on the pixel array may be disconnected from the link
> >frequency (and throughput) -- it may be more (with e.g. binning) or less,
> >depending on the sensor of course. Calculating it, if possible, is always
> >better than using a fixed value; experience has shown these are often
> >simply incorrect and sometimes not updated when other changes are made (and
> >same goes for the link frequency).
> 
> Okay, I just want to know if this is non-blocking comment and we can go ahead
> with current version of driver.
> 
> Meanwhile my colleague Tarang is working on some features and he is planning
> to send a series on top of this driver. If he takes up this comment in that
> series will it be okay with you?

Isn't calculating the frequency a fairly trivial thing to do? Why not to do
it now?

> 
> And also I have already sent next revision v8.
> Please let me know.
> 

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus