Hi Sebastian,
On Thursday 23 January 2014 01:11:29 Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:57:45PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> camera-switch {
> >>
> >> /*
> >>
> >> * TODO:
> >> * - check if the switching code is generic enough to use a
> >> * more generic name like "gpio-camera-switch".
> >
> > I think you can use a more generic name. You could probably get some
> > inspiration from the i2c-mux-gpio DT bindings.
>
> My main concern is, that the gpio used for switching is also connected to
> the reset pin of one of the cameras. Maybe that fact can just be neglected,
> though?I'm not the only one to wish we could change that, but alas! we'll have to live with that stupid hardware design decision :-) What we want to ensure here is that the two sensors won't be accessed at the same time, as that would lead to errors. This was previously handled by callback function to board code, but board code is now going away. The challenge is to find a way to express the constraints in DT. I'm not sure whether that's doable in a generic way, and this might be one of the rare cases where board code is still needed. Sakari, have you given this a thought ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
