Hi all On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> Hi Guennadi > > > There was a question at the bottom of this email, which you might have > > overseen:-) Could you give me an idea, which patche(es) exactly you meant? > > sorry for my super late response. > I losted this email. > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] soc-camera: mt9t112: modify delay time after > > > > > > initialize > (snip) > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 3/3] soc-camera: mt9t112: The flag which control > > > > > > camera-init is removed > > > > > This patch is needed for mt9t112 camera initialize. > > > > I thought that it was already applied. > > > > > > Which patch do you mean? Patch 2/3, or 3/3, or both are needed? > > Both are needed. > These are bug fix patches I tried to capture several frames beginning with the very first one (as much as performance allowed), and I do see several black or wrongly coloured framed in the beginning, but none of those patches, including the proposed 300ms at the end of .s_stream() fixes the problem reliably. So, either this problems, that these patches fix, are specific to the Solution Engine board (is it the one, where the problems have been observed?), or one needs a different testing method. If they are SE-specific - I don't think, getting those fixes in the driver is very important, because mt9t112 data for SE is not in the mainline. If I was testing wrongly, please, tell me how exactly to reproduce those problems and see, how one or another patch fixes them. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
