Hi Guennadi, On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:22:18 +0200 (CEST) Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovet...@gmx.de> wrote: ... > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9v022.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9v022.c > > @@ -274,9 +274,9 @@ static int mt9v022_s_crop(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > struct v4l2_crop *a) > > if (ret & 1) /* Autoexposure */ > > ret = reg_write(client, > > mt9v022->reg->max_total_shutter_width, > > rect.height + mt9v022->y_skip_top + 43); > > - else > > - ret = reg_write(client, MT9V022_TOTAL_SHUTTER_WIDTH, > > - rect.height + mt9v022->y_skip_top + 43); > > + else /* Set to the manually controlled value */ > > + ret = v4l2_ctrl_s_ctrl(mt9v022->exposure, > > + mt9v022->exposure->val); > > But why do we have to write it here at all then? Autoexposure can be off > only if the user has set exposure manually, using V4L2_CID_EXPOSURE_AUTO. > In this case MT9V022_TOTAL_SHUTTER_WIDTH already contains the correct > value. Why do we have to set it again? Maybe just adding a comment, > explaining the above, would suffice?
Actually we do not have to write it here, yes. Should I remove the shutter register setting here entirely? And add a comment explaining, why? Thanks, Anatolij -- 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
