Re: [PATCH v3 RESEND] media: i2c: Add OV05C10 camera sensor driver

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:20:34AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:19:35AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:35:18AM +0200, Mehdi Djait wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 01:05:03AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 05:51:48PM -0400, Nirujogi, Pratap wrote:
> > > > > On 6/16/2025 6:49 PM, Nirujogi, Pratap wrote:
> > > > > >>> +static int ov05c10_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > > > > >>> +{
> > > > > >>> +     struct ov05c10 *ov05c10;
> > > > > >>> +     u32 clkfreq;
> > > > > >>> +     int ret;
> > > > > >>> +
> > > > > >>> +     ov05c10 = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*ov05c10), 
> > > > > >>> GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > >>> +     if (!ov05c10)
> > > > > >>> +             return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > >>> +
> > > > > >>> +     struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = dev_fwnode(&client->dev);
> > > > > >>> +
> > > > > >>> +     ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(fwnode, "clock-frequency", 
> > > > > >>> &clkfreq);
> > > > > >>> +     if (ret)
> > > > > >>> +             return  dev_err_probe(&client->dev, -EINVAL,
> > > > > >>> +                                   "fail to get clock freq\n");
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Let's try to land
> > > > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/20250521104115.176950-1- 
> > > > > >> mehdi.djait@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > > >> and replace the code above with devm_v4l2_sensor_clk_get().
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > Ok, we will verify on our side.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We tried using devm_v4l2_sensor_clk_get() and found its required to add 
> > > > > support for software_node to make it work with this driver.
> > > > 
> > > > Why is that ?
> > > > 
> > > > > Please refer 
> > > > > the changes below and let us know if these should be submitted as a 
> > > > > separate patch.
> > > 
> > > The helper is still not merged, so no patch is required.
> > > 
> > > I will see if a change is needed from the helper side or the OV05C10 side.
> > 
> > I wonder if there's a better way to figure out if you're running on a DT or
> > ACPI based system than getting the device's parents and checking which one
> > you find first, DT or ACPI. I think that should work for now at least.
> 
> Or, rather, checking for non-OF node here would probably work the best. I
> wouldn't expect these to be software node based on DT systems ever.

Until it happens :-) And we'll handle it then.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart