On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:59:45PM +0800, Scott Jiang wrote: > >> If I disable this interrupt, other errors like fifo underflow are ignored. > >> Perhaps I can add a parameter in platform data to let user decide to > >> register this interrupt or not. > > > > I think a more generic solution would be preferrable. If that causes > > ignoring real errors, that's of course bad. I wonder if there would be a > > way around that. > > > > Is there a publicly available datasheet for the bridge that I could take a > > look at? > > > Yes, > http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/blackfin/adsp-bf548/processors/technical-documentation/index.html. > There is a hardware reference manual for bf54x, bridge is eppi.
It's really an interesting design choice --- it also likely makes detecting all too common errors easier. But it also makes it impossible to dynamically change blanking periods... Well, I think the solution could be that the host would set these sensor controls read-only (or just make them return -EBUSY when written to); this isn't yet supported in the control framework. Also the idea is rather new, but I think it would have many more uses than this. Hans? -- Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ai...@iki.fi jabber/XMPP/Gmail: sai...@retiisi.org.uk -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
