[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+V-a8urKEjEKP0n9mki8xx1B9JLOMTYM4F1aXC3h_5Ne0+tCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 18:26:49 +0100
From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
Shawn Tu <shawnx.tu@...el.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Jacopo Mondi <jacopo@...ndi.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] media: i2c: ov5645: Don't return early on failures
for s_stream(0)
Hi Marco,
Thank you for the review.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 6:17 PM Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> thanks for the patch, please see below my comments.
>
> On 22-10-26, Prabhakar wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
> >
> > Make sure we dont stop the code flow in case of errors while stopping
> > the stream and return the error code of the first error case if any.
> >
> > v4l2-core takes care of warning the user so no need to add a warning
> > message in the driver.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
> > ---
> > v2->v3
> > * Now propagating the first error code in case of failure.
> >
> > v1->v2
> > * New patch
> > ---
> > drivers/media/i2c/ov5645.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov5645.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov5645.c
> > index eea3067ddc8b..5702a55607fc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov5645.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov5645.c
> > @@ -996,17 +996,22 @@ static int ov5645_s_stream(struct v4l2_subdev *subdev, int enable)
> > if (ret < 0)
> > goto err_rpm_put;
> > } else {
> > + int stream_off_ret = 0;
> > +
> > ret = ov5645_write_reg(ov5645, OV5645_IO_MIPI_CTRL00, 0x40);
>
> If this write failed..
>
> > if (ret < 0)
> > - return ret;
> > + stream_off_ret = ret;
> >
> > ret = ov5645_write_reg(ov5645, OV5645_SYSTEM_CTRL0,
> > OV5645_SYSTEM_CTRL0_STOP);
>
> why should this write be successful?
>
Indeed that will fail unless I have a lucky day ;-)
But it seemed to be an overkill for adding an additional check to see
if the previous write succeeded. Do you think this will create an
issue?
Cheers,
Prabhakar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists