Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 13/14] media: tegra-video: Add CSI MIPI pads
 calibration
To:     Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com>,
        thierry.reding@gmail.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, frankc@nvidia.com,
        hverkuil@xs4all.nl, sakari.ailus@iki.fi, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        helen.koike@collabora.com
Cc:     sboyd@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org
References: <1595883452-17343-1-git-send-email-skomatineni@nvidia.com>
 <1595883452-17343-14-git-send-email-skomatineni@nvidia.com>
 <c3d40261-9d77-3634-3e04-f20efad9d3d8@gmail.com>
 <01ee0805-3d57-d857-48e3-5c2245cd4500@nvidia.com>
 <2ec535c9-55e8-8834-6002-36c75aeb097c@gmail.com>
 <021707b9-5f72-6f8b-d125-43627ef64a6d@nvidia.com>
 <de2d6117-b1e5-14c0-52ca-ff46b444c866@nvidia.com>
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ca18b93e-1f1c-50ae-e0c1-11758935ee89@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:43:27 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <de2d6117-b1e5-14c0-52ca-ff46b444c866@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

30.07.2020 03:27, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
...
>>> Secondly, perhaps a failed calibration isn't a very critical error?
>>> Hence just printing a warning message should be enough.
>>
>> Using dev_err to report calibration failure. Are you suggesting to use
>> dev_warn instead of dev_err?

I meant that failing s_stream might be unnecessary.

The dev_warn should be more appropriate for a non-critical errors.

>>> Could you please make a patch that factors all ON/OFF code paths into a
>>> separate functions? It's a bit difficult to follow the combined code,
>>> especially partial changes in the patches. Thanks in advance!
>>
>> what do you mean by partial changes in patches?
>>
>> Can you please be more clear?
> 
> Also please specify what ON/OFF code paths you are referring to when you
> say to move into separate functions?

I meant to change all the code like this:

set(on) {
    if (on) {
       ...
       return;
    }

    if (!on)
      ...

    return;
}

to somewhat like this:

set(on) {
    if (on)
      ret = enable();
    else
      ret = disable();

    return ret;
}