On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 07:46:34PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:

Hi,

quoted

Am 26.06.2017 um 18:31 schrieb Sakari Ailus [off-list ref]:

Hi Hugues,

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 05:05:38PM +0200, Hugues Fruchet wrote:

quoted

@@ -1545,15 +1577,22 @@ static int ov965x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)

}

static const struct i2c_device_id ov965x_id[] = {
-	{ "OV9650", 0 },
-	{ "OV9652", 0 },
+	{ "OV9650", 0x9650 },
+	{ "OV9652", 0x9652 },

This change does not appear to match with the patch description nor it the
information is used. How about not changing it, unless there's a reason to?
The same for the data field of the of_device_id array below.

I think it could/should be used to check if the camera chip that is found
by reading the product-id and version registers does match what the device
tree expects and abort probing on a mismatch.

Makes sense. But it should be a separate patch, shouldn't it?

You could also put the id to the ops struct, and choose the ops struct that
way. Entirely up to you.

-- 
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus-X3B1VOXEql0@public.gmane.org	XMPP: sailus-PCDdDYkjdNMDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html