[PATCH RFC v3] media: i2c: mt9p031: add OF support

[Sascha Hauer]

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:59:27AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Sascha,
> 
> On Monday 13 May 2013 12:46:04 Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 12:37:29PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > Hi Prabhakar,
> > > 
> > > On Wednesday 08 May 2013 10:19:57 Prabhakar Lad wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday 07 May 2013 15:10:36 Prabhakar Lad wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Prabhakar Lad wrote:
> > > > >> > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Friday 03 May 2013, Prabhakar Lad wrote:
> > > > >> > [snip]
> > > > >> > 
> > > > >> >>> +}
> > > > >> >> 
> > > > >> >> Ok, good.
> > > > >> >> 
> > > > >> >>> @@ -955,7 +998,17 @@ static int mt9p031_probe(struct i2c_client
> > > > >> >>> *client,
> > > > >> >>> 
> > > > >> >>>         mt9p031->pdata = pdata;
> > > > >> >>>         mt9p031->output_control = MT9P031_OUTPUT_CONTROL_DEF;
> > > > >> >>>         mt9p031->mode2 = MT9P031_READ_MODE_2_ROW_BLC;
> > > > >> >>> 
> > > > >> >>> -       mt9p031->model = did->driver_data;
> > > > >> >>> +
> > > > >> >>> +       if (!client->dev.of_node) {
> > > > >> >>> +               mt9p031->model = (enum
> > > > >> >>> mt9p031_model)did->driver_data;
> > > > >> >>> +       } else {
> > > > >> >>> +               const struct of_device_id *of_id;
> > > > >> >>> +
> > > > >> >>> +               of_id =
> > > > >> >>> of_match_device(of_match_ptr(mt9p031_of_match),
> > > > >> >>> +                                       &client->dev);
> > > > >> >>> +               if (of_id)
> > > > >> >>> +                       mt9p031->model = (enum
> > > > >> >>> mt9p031_model)of_id->data;
> > > > >> >>> +       }
> > > > >> >>> 
> > > > >> >>>         mt9p031->reset = -1;
> > > > >> >> 
> > > > >> >> Is this actually required? I thought the i2c core just compared
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> part of the "compatible" value after the first comma to the
> > > > >> >> string, so
> > > > >> >> "mt9p031->model = (enum mt9p031_model)did->driver_data" should
> > > > >> >> work
> > > > >> >> in both cases.
> > 
> > At least on v3.8 I just checked that 'did' is indeed NULL for the
> > devicetree case. Also I see no indication that i2c starts comparing
> > after the first comma in the string.
> > 
> > > > >> > I am OK with "mt9p031->model = (enum
> > > > >> > mt9p031_model)did->driver_data"
> > > > >> > but I see still few drivers doing this, I am not sure for what
> > > > >> > reason.
> > > > >> > If everyone is OK with it I can drop the above change.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> My bad, while booting with DT the i2c_device_id ie did in this case
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> be NULL, so the above changes are required :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've just tested your patch, and did isn't NULL when booting my
> > > > > Beagleboard with DT (on v3.9-rc5).
> > > > 
> > > > I am pretty much sure you tested it compatible property as
> > > > "aptina,mt9p031"
> > > > if the compatible property is set to "aptina,mt9p031m" the did will be
> > > > NULL.> 
> > > I've tested both :-)
> > 
> > Sorry to nag, but did you use "aptina,mt9p031[m]" as a compatible string or
> > did you use "mt9p031[m]". With "aptina,..." 'did' should really be NULL.
> 
> I've used "aptina,mt9p031[m]".
> 
> Please see the of_modalias_node() call in of_i2c_register_devices() 
> (drivers/of/of-i2c.c), that's where the I2C device type name should be 
> initialized.

Ok, got it. I still had the older aptina,mt9p031m-sensor binding in my
patch.

Sorry for the noise.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |