[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5277658.1FioEDcST1@avalon>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:10:09 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [media] s5k6aa: set usleep_range greater 0
Hi Sylwester,
On Tuesday 13 Dec 2016 13:38:52 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 02:58 AM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > As this is not in atomic context and it does not seem like a critical
> > timing setting a range of 1ms allows the timer subsystem to optimize
> > the hrtimer here.
> >
> > Fixes: commit bfa8dd3a0524 ("[media] v4l: Add v4l2 subdev driver for
> > S5K6AAFX sensor") Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>
> > ---
>
> Acked-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
>
> I'm not sure the "Fixes" tag is needed here.
>
> > Patch is against 4.9.0 (localversion-next is next-20161212)
>
> Ideally patches for the media subsystem should be normally based on
> master branch of the media tree (git://linuxtv.org/media_tree.git).
As pointed out by Ian Arkver, the datasheet states the delay should be >50µs.
Would it make sense to reduce the sleep duration to (3000, 4000) for instance
(or possibly even lower), instead of increasing it ?
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists