Hi Andrey,
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:53:51PM +0300, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -448,6 +466,22 @@ static int imx290_set_ctrl(struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl)
case V4L2_CID_GAIN:
ret = imx290_set_gain(imx290, ctrl->val);
break;
+ case V4L2_CID_TEST_PATTERN:
+ if (ctrl->val) {
+ imx290_write_reg(imx290, IMX290_BLKLEVEL_LOW, 0x00);
+ imx290_write_reg(imx290, IMX290_BLKLEVEL_HIGH, 0x00);
+ msleep(10);
+ imx290_write_reg(imx290, IMX290_PGCTRL,
+ (u8)(IMX290_PGCTRL_REGEN |
+ IMX290_PGCTRL_THRU |
+ IMX290_PGCTRL_MODE(ctrl->val)));
+ } else {
+ imx290_write_reg(imx290, IMX290_PGCTRL, 0x00);
+ msleep(10);
+ imx290_write_reg(imx290, IMX290_BLKLEVEL_LOW, 0x3c);
+ imx290_write_reg(imx290, IMX290_BLKLEVEL_HIGH, 0x00);
+ }
+ break;
default:
ret = -EINVAL;
break;
I've merged the patches in my tree. Could you still replace msleep() with
less than 20 ms with usleep_range() usage as a follow-up patch on top of
these, please?
--
Kind regards,
Sakari Ailus