[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170615220659.GG12407@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 01:07:00 +0300
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
mchehab@...nel.org, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com, sre@...nel.org, pali.rohar@...il.com,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v4l2-fwnode: status, plans for merge, any branch to merge
against?
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 09:41:29PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c
> index 4ca3fc9..b80debf 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c
> @@ -2026,7 +2026,7 @@ static int isp_fwnode_parse(struct device *dev, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
>
> isd->bus = buscfg;
>
> - ret = v4l2_fwnode_endpoint_parse(fwn, vep);
> + ret = v4l2_fwnode_endpoint_parse(fwnode, &vep);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
I just pushed the fix there.
Btw. I think we should probably drop the change allocating the sub-device
configuration separately. It's better to associate the lens, flash and
eeprom (where it exists) to the sensor than to the CSI-2 receiver. In that
case there are no async sub-devices without bus configuration.
--
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@....fi XMPP: sailus@...iisi.org.uk
Powered by blists - more mailing lists