Re: [PATCH -next v3 2/2] media: ov772x: use SCCB helpers
> > I think it would be even better to introduce a SSCB regmap layer > > and use that. > > I'm fine with introducing a SCCB regmap layer. I am fine with this approach, too. > But do we need to provide both a SCCB regmap and these SCCB helpers? I don't know much about the OV sensor drivers. I'd think they would benefit from regmap, so a-kind-of enforced conversion to regmap doesn't sound too bad to me. > If we have a regmap_init_sccb(), I feel these three SCCB helper functions > don't need to be exported anymore. Might be true. But other media guys are probably in a better position to comment on this? Note that I found SCCB devices with 16 bit regs: ov2659 & ov 2685. I think we can cover those with SMBus word accesses. regmap is probably also the cleanest way to hide this detail? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH -next v3 2/2] media: ov772x: use SCCB helpers
2018年7月10日(火) 6:23 Sebastian Reichel :
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:14:43PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > static int ov772x_read(struct i2c_client *client, u8 addr)
> > > {
> > > - int ret;
> > > - u8 val;
> > > -
> > > - ret = i2c_master_send(client, &addr, 1);
> > > - if (ret < 0)
> > > - return ret;
> > > - ret = i2c_master_recv(client, &val, 1);
> > > - if (ret < 0)
> > > - return ret;
> > > -
> > > - return val;
> > > + return sccb_read_byte(client, addr);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static inline int ov772x_write(struct i2c_client *client, u8 addr, u8
> > > value)
> > > {
> > > - return i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, addr, value);
> > > + return sccb_write_byte(client, addr, value);
> > > }
>
> Reviewed-by: Sebastian Reichel
>
> > Minor nit: I'd rather drop these two functions and use the
> > sccb-accessors directly.
> >
> > However, I really like how this looks here: It is totally clear we are
> > doing SCCB and hide away all the details.
>
> I think it would be even better to introduce a SSCB regmap layer
> and use that.
I'm fine with introducing a SCCB regmap layer.
But do we need to provide both a SCCB regmap and these SCCB helpers?
If we have a regmap_init_sccb(), I feel these three SCCB helper functions
don't need to be exported anymore.
Re: [PATCH -next v3 2/2] media: ov772x: use SCCB helpers
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:14:43PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > static int ov772x_read(struct i2c_client *client, u8 addr)
> > {
> > - int ret;
> > - u8 val;
> > -
> > - ret = i2c_master_send(client, &addr, 1);
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > - return ret;
> > - ret = i2c_master_recv(client, &val, 1);
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > - return ret;
> > -
> > - return val;
> > + return sccb_read_byte(client, addr);
> > }
> >
> > static inline int ov772x_write(struct i2c_client *client, u8 addr, u8
> > value)
> > {
> > - return i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, addr, value);
> > + return sccb_write_byte(client, addr, value);
> > }
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Reichel
> Minor nit: I'd rather drop these two functions and use the
> sccb-accessors directly.
>
> However, I really like how this looks here: It is totally clear we are
> doing SCCB and hide away all the details.
I think it would be even better to introduce a SSCB regmap layer
and use that.
-- Sebastian
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH -next v3 2/2] media: ov772x: use SCCB helpers
> static int ov772x_read(struct i2c_client *client, u8 addr)
> {
> - int ret;
> - u8 val;
> -
> - ret = i2c_master_send(client, &addr, 1);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> - ret = i2c_master_recv(client, &val, 1);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> -
> - return val;
> + return sccb_read_byte(client, addr);
> }
>
> static inline int ov772x_write(struct i2c_client *client, u8 addr, u8 value)
> {
> - return i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, addr, value);
> + return sccb_write_byte(client, addr, value);
> }
Minor nit: I'd rather drop these two functions and use the
sccb-accessors directly.
However, I really like how this looks here: It is totally clear we are
doing SCCB and hide away all the details.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
