[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9c8d571-e0ce-4703-8748-96f7ca4a59bf@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 10:28:14 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Will Whang <will@...lwhang.com>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Rob Herring
<robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] media: i2c: imx585: Add Sony IMX585 image-sensor
driver
On 17/08/2025 09:53, Will Whang wrote:
>>>
>>> And in all the examples I provided to you, this is the only IMX415
>>> that has the logic inverted.
>>
>> And? All other drivers, camera sensors, hwmon, iio, codecs and whatnot?
>>
> Are those Sony image sensors?
>>
>>> I can apply the same logic and say this is buggy and wrong.
>>
>> We are not going to talk imaginary things.
>>
> So you can imagine this code is buggy even though I tell you this is correct?
> Of course I tested it already.
>
>>> Do you understand this is writing the GPIO directly and has nothing to
>>
>> It is not. Again, you are mixing logical level with line level. You
>> never responded to that part, you never used actual arguments except
>> some vague statements like above.
>>
>> You do not write GPIO directly.
>>
>> Each driver is supposed to use logical level.
>>
> hmm? Code in the tree disagree with you? Are you going to arguing that
> all the 90% of Sony image sensor drivers are old and buggy?
I checked now and both driver and all users of imx219 are wrong. Don't
ever use that as an example.
And you doing THE SAME as imx219 is also proof that your code is wrong.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists