Hi Mauro,
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 03:25:18PM -0400, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> From: Robert Jarzmik <[email protected]>
>
> In the soc_camera removal, the board specific power callback was
> dropped. This at least will remove the power optimization from ezx and
> em-x270 pxa based boards.
>
> As to recreate the same level of functionality, make the mt9m111 have a
> regulator providing it its power, so that board designers can plug in a
> gpio based or ldo regulator, mimicking their former soc_camera power
> hook.
>
> Fixes: 5c10113cc668 ("media: mt9m111: make a standalone v4l2 subdevice")
>
> [[email protected]: check return values for regulator_enable and
> fix a build warning]
> Signed-off-by: Robert Jarzmik <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> This is a respin of this patch:
>
> http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/37950/
>
> rebased (and fixed) to apply on the top of upstream.
>
> While checking old patches at the ML, I noticed that this patch
> was never applied:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg1238720.html
>
> The first patch of this series got applied, though:
>
> c771f42fed7f ("[media] media: platform: pxa_camera: add missing sensor
> power on")
>
> So, I'm closing the original patch as obsoleted and I'm sending this
> one to the ML for tests.
>
> Can anyone test this patch and send a tested-by?
>
> drivers/media/i2c/mt9m111.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m111.c b/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m111.c
> index 5168bb5880c4..746d1345b505 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m111.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/mt9m111.c
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> #include <linux/log2.h>
> #include <linux/gpio.h>
> #include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> #include <linux/v4l2-mediabus.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/property.h>
> @@ -243,6 +244,7 @@ struct mt9m111 {
> int power_count;
> const struct mt9m111_datafmt *fmt;
> int lastpage; /* PageMap cache value */
> + struct regulator *regulator;
> bool is_streaming;
> /* user point of view - 0: falling 1: rising edge */
> unsigned int pclk_sample:1;
> @@ -982,6 +984,12 @@ static int mt9m111_power_on(struct mt9m111 *mt9m111)
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> + if (mt9m111->regulator) {
> + ret = regulator_enable(mt9m111->regulator);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> ret = mt9m111_resume(mt9m111);
> if (ret < 0) {
> dev_err(&client->dev, "Failed to resume the sensor: %d\n", ret);
> @@ -994,6 +1002,8 @@ static int mt9m111_power_on(struct mt9m111 *mt9m111)
> static void mt9m111_power_off(struct mt9m111 *mt9m111)
> {
> mt9m111_suspend(mt9m111);
> + if (mt9m111->regulator)
You could omit this check, same for the above. As Mita-san explained, it
falls back to using the dummy regulator if there isn't one defined.
> + regulator_disable(mt9m111->regulator);
> v4l2_clk_disable(mt9m111->clk);
> }
>
> @@ -1256,6 +1266,13 @@ static int mt9m111_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> if (IS_ERR(mt9m111->clk))
> return PTR_ERR(mt9m111->clk);
>
> + mt9m111->regulator = devm_regulator_get(&client->dev, "vdd");
> + if (IS_ERR(mt9m111->regulator)) {
> + dev_err(&client->dev, "regulator not found: %ld\n",
> + PTR_ERR(mt9m111->regulator));
> + return PTR_ERR(mt9m111->regulator);
> + }
> +
> /* Default HIGHPOWER context */
> mt9m111->ctx = &context_b;
>
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
[email protected]
