Re: [PATCH] mt9m111: add support for mt9m112 since sensors seem identical

[Mike Rapoport <mike@compulab.co.il>]

Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <mike@compulab.co.il>
>> ---
>>  drivers/media/video/mt9m111.c |    3 ++-
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/video/mt9m111.c b/drivers/media/video/mt9m111.c
>> index da0b2d5..49c1167 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/video/mt9m111.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/video/mt9m111.c
>> @@ -841,7 +841,8 @@ static int mt9m111_video_probe(struct soc_camera_device *icd)
>>  	data = reg_read(CHIP_VERSION);
>>  
>>  	switch (data) {
>> -	case 0x143a:
>> +	case 0x143a: /* MT9M111 */
>> +	case 0x148c: /* MT9M112 */
>>  		mt9m111->model = V4L2_IDENT_MT9M111;
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to add a new chip ID? Are there any differences 
> between the two models, that the user might want to know about?

I don't have mt9m111 datasheet, I can only judge by "feature comparison" table
in the mt9m112 datasheet. It seems that sensors differ in there advanced image
processing and low power mode capabilities.
If you think it's worse adding new chip ID, I'll prepare the patches.

> Thanks
> Guennadi
> 
>>  		icd->formats = mt9m111_colour_formats;
>>  		icd->num_formats = ARRAY_SIZE(mt9m111_colour_formats);
>> -- 
>> 1.5.6.4
>>
>> --
>> video4linux-list mailing list
>> Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
>>
> 
> ---
> Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
> Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.


--
video4linux-list mailing list
Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list