Dear Guennadi
Thank you for checking patch
> Can you explain a bit why this patch is needed? Apart from a slight
> stylistic improvement and a saving of 4 bytes of platform data per camera
> instance? Is it going to be needed for some future changes?
This patch is not so important/necessary at once.
-> for saving of 4 bytes.
> if (!is_power_of_2(priv->info->flags & (OV772X_FLAG_8BIT |
> OV772X_FLAG_10BIT)))
> return 0;
>
> make sense here? Or even just modify your tests above to
(snip)
> Adding a "default:" case just above the "case OV772X_FLAG_10BIT:" line
> would seem like a good idea to me too.
I understand.
> > +#define OV772X_FLAG_8BIT (1 << 2) /* 8bit buswidth */
> > +#define OV772X_FLAG_10BIT (1 << 3) /* 10bit buswidth */
May I suggest here ?
What do you think if it have only 10BIT flag,
and check/operation like this ?
if (priv->info->flags & OV772X_FLAG_10BIT) {
flags |= SOCAM_DATAWIDTH_10;
else
flags |= SOCAM_DATAWIDTH_8;
This case, below check became not needed,
Does this operation make sense for you ?
> > /*
> > - * ov772x only use 8 or 10 bit bus width
> > - */
> > - if (SOCAM_DATAWIDTH_10 != priv->info->buswidth &&
> > - SOCAM_DATAWIDTH_8 != priv->info->buswidth) {
> > - dev_err(&client->dev, "bus width error\n");
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > - }
Best regards
--
Kuninori Morimoto
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
