On 03/06/2013 12:53 PM, Shaik Ameer Basha wrote:
Signed-off-by: Shaik Ameer Basha<shaik.am...@samsung.com>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts
index 4b10744..7fbc236 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts
@@ -85,9 +85,26 @@
};
i2c@12CA0000 {
- status = "disabled";
+ samsung,i2c-sda-delay =<100>;
+ samsung,i2c-max-bus-freq =<100000>;
pinctrl-0 =<&i2c4_bus>;
pinctrl-names = "default";
+
+ m5mols@1f {
+ compatible = "fujitsu,m-5mols";
+ reg =<0x1F>;
+ gpios =<&gpx3 3 0xf>,<&gpx1 2 1>;
+ clock-frequency =<24000000>;
+ pinctrl-0 =<&cam_port_a_clk_active>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
Ah, so it's that way... I don't think that is correct. What you're doing
here is assigning an SoC clock output pin pinctrl node to pinctrl property
of an image sensor device that is external to an SoC. Why don't you put
this pinctrl properties in the common "camera" node ?
+
+ port {
+ m5mols_ep: endpoint {
+ remote-endpoint =<&csis0_ep>;
+ };
+ };
+
+ };
};
i2c@12CB0000 {
@@ -214,4 +231,28 @@
samsung,mfc-r =<0x43000000 0x800000>;
samsung,mfc-l =<0x51000000 0x800000>;
};
+
+ camera {
+ compatible = "samsung,exynos5-fimc", "simple-bus";
Shouldn't it be "samsung,exynos5-is" (Imaging Subsystem), or something
more relevant to exynos5 ? Or what would be reasons to use "fimc" for
exynos5 ?
--
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
