On Friday 06 March 2015 21:25:36 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Josh Wu wrote:

quoted

On 3/5/2015 6:41 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 05 March 2015 13:01:01 Josh Wu wrote:

quoted

The master clock should handled by sensor itself.

I like that :-)

quoted

Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <redacted>
---

  drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/atmel-isi.c | 32 -------------------
  1 file changed, 32 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/atmel-isi.c

b/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/atmel-isi.c index 4a384f1..50375ce
100644

--- a/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/atmel-isi.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/atmel-isi.c

@@ -83,8 +83,6 @@ struct atmel_isi {

  	struct completion		complete;
  	/* ISI peripherial clock */
  	struct clk			*pclk;

-	/* ISI_MCK, feed to camera sensor to generate pixel clock */
-	struct clk			*mck;

  	unsigned int			irq;
  	
  	struct isi_platform_data	pdata;

@@ -725,26 +723,12 @@ static void isi_camera_remove_device(struct

soc_camera_device *icd) /* Called with .host_lock held */

  static int isi_camera_clock_start(struct soc_camera_host *ici)
  {

-	struct atmel_isi *isi = ici->priv;
-	int ret;
-
-	if (!IS_ERR(isi->mck)) {
-		ret = clk_prepare_enable(isi->mck);
-		if (ret) {
-			return ret;
-		}
-	}
-

  	return 0;

Would it make sense to make the clock_start and clock_stop operations
optional in the soc-camera core ?

I agree. For those camera host which don't provide master clock for
sensor, clock_start and clock_stop should be optional.

Hi, Guennadi

Do you agree with this?

Yes, sure, we can do this. Would anyone like to prepare a patch?

Josh, would you like to do that, or should I give it a go ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart