This patch sets the current exposure time as maximum for the
flash_duration control. As Flash/Strobes which are longer than the
exposure time have no effect.
Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@linux.dev>
---
drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
index b104ae77f00e9e7777342e48b7bf3caa6d297f69..3253d9f271cb3caef6d85837ebec4f5beb466a4d 100644
--- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
+++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
@@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ struct ov9282_mode {
* @exp_ctrl: Pointer to exposure control
* @again_ctrl: Pointer to analog gain control
* @pixel_rate: Pointer to pixel rate control
+ * @flash_duration: Pointer to flash duration control
* @vblank: Vertical blanking in lines
* @noncontinuous_clock: Selection of CSI2 noncontinuous clock mode
* @cur_mode: Pointer to current selected sensor mode
@@ -220,6 +221,7 @@ struct ov9282 {
struct v4l2_ctrl *again_ctrl;
};
struct v4l2_ctrl *pixel_rate;
+ struct v4l2_ctrl *flash_duration;
u32 vblank;
bool noncontinuous_clock;
const struct ov9282_mode *cur_mode;
@@ -611,6 +613,15 @@ static int ov9282_update_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282,
mode->vblank_max, 1, mode->vblank);
}
+static u32 ov9282_exposure_to_us(struct ov9282 *ov9282, u32 exposure)
+{
+ /* calculate exposure time in µs */
+ u32 frame_width = ov9282->cur_mode->width + ov9282->hblank_ctrl->val;
+ u32 trow_us = (frame_width * 1000000UL) / ov9282->pixel_rate->val;
+
+ return exposure * trow_us;
+}
+
/**
* ov9282_update_exp_gain() - Set updated exposure and gain
* @ov9282: pointer to ov9282 device
@@ -622,9 +633,10 @@ static int ov9282_update_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282,
static int ov9282_update_exp_gain(struct ov9282 *ov9282, u32 exposure, u32 gain)
{
int ret;
+ u32 exposure_us = ov9282_exposure_to_us(ov9282, exposure);
- dev_dbg(ov9282->dev, "Set exp %u, analog gain %u",
- exposure, gain);
+ dev_dbg(ov9282->dev, "Set exp %u (~%u us), analog gain %u",
+ exposure, exposure_us, gain);
ret = ov9282_write_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_HOLD, 1, 1);
if (ret)
@@ -635,6 +647,12 @@ static int ov9282_update_exp_gain(struct ov9282 *ov9282, u32 exposure, u32 gain)
goto error_release_group_hold;
ret = ov9282_write_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_AGAIN, 1, gain);
+ if (ret)
+ goto error_release_group_hold;
+
+ ret = __v4l2_ctrl_modify_range(ov9282->flash_duration,
+ 0, exposure_us, 1,
+ OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT);
error_release_group_hold:
ov9282_write_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_HOLD, 1, 0);
@@ -1420,6 +1438,7 @@ static int ov9282_init_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282)
struct v4l2_fwnode_device_properties props;
struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl;
u32 hblank_min;
+ u32 exposure_us;
u32 lpfr;
int ret;
@@ -1491,8 +1510,11 @@ static int ov9282_init_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282)
/* Flash/Strobe controls */
v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_HW_STROBE_SIGNAL, 0, 1, 1, 0);
- v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION,
- 0, 13900, 1, 8);
+ exposure_us = ov9282_exposure_to_us(ov9282, OV9282_EXPOSURE_DEFAULT);
+ ov9282->flash_duration = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr,
+ &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION,
+ 0, exposure_us,
+ 1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT);
ctrl = v4l2_ctrl_new_std_menu(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops,
V4L2_CID_FLASH_STROBE_SOURCE,
--
2.47.2
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 05:05:15PM +0200, Richard Leitner wrote:
> This patch sets the current exposure time as maximum for the
> flash_duration control. As Flash/Strobes which are longer than the
> exposure time have no effect.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@linux.dev>
> ---
> drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> index b104ae77f00e9e7777342e48b7bf3caa6d297f69..3253d9f271cb3caef6d85837ebec4f5beb466a4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ struct ov9282_mode {
> * @exp_ctrl: Pointer to exposure control
> * @again_ctrl: Pointer to analog gain control
> * @pixel_rate: Pointer to pixel rate control
> + * @flash_duration: Pointer to flash duration control
> * @vblank: Vertical blanking in lines
> * @noncontinuous_clock: Selection of CSI2 noncontinuous clock mode
> * @cur_mode: Pointer to current selected sensor mode
> @@ -220,6 +221,7 @@ struct ov9282 {
> struct v4l2_ctrl *again_ctrl;
> };
> struct v4l2_ctrl *pixel_rate;
> + struct v4l2_ctrl *flash_duration;
> u32 vblank;
> bool noncontinuous_clock;
> const struct ov9282_mode *cur_mode;
> @@ -611,6 +613,15 @@ static int ov9282_update_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282,
> mode->vblank_max, 1, mode->vblank);
> }
>
> +static u32 ov9282_exposure_to_us(struct ov9282 *ov9282, u32 exposure)
> +{
> + /* calculate exposure time in µs */
> + u32 frame_width = ov9282->cur_mode->width + ov9282->hblank_ctrl->val;
> + u32 trow_us = (frame_width * 1000000UL) / ov9282->pixel_rate->val;
Redundant parentheses.
> +
> + return exposure * trow_us;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * ov9282_update_exp_gain() - Set updated exposure and gain
> * @ov9282: pointer to ov9282 device
> @@ -622,9 +633,10 @@ static int ov9282_update_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282,
> static int ov9282_update_exp_gain(struct ov9282 *ov9282, u32 exposure, u32 gain)
> {
> int ret;
> + u32 exposure_us = ov9282_exposure_to_us(ov9282, exposure);
>
> - dev_dbg(ov9282->dev, "Set exp %u, analog gain %u",
> - exposure, gain);
> + dev_dbg(ov9282->dev, "Set exp %u (~%u us), analog gain %u",
> + exposure, exposure_us, gain);
>
> ret = ov9282_write_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_HOLD, 1, 1);
> if (ret)
> @@ -635,6 +647,12 @@ static int ov9282_update_exp_gain(struct ov9282 *ov9282, u32 exposure, u32 gain)
> goto error_release_group_hold;
>
> ret = ov9282_write_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_AGAIN, 1, gain);
> + if (ret)
> + goto error_release_group_hold;
> +
> + ret = __v4l2_ctrl_modify_range(ov9282->flash_duration,
> + 0, exposure_us, 1,
> + OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT);
>
> error_release_group_hold:
> ov9282_write_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_HOLD, 1, 0);
> @@ -1420,6 +1438,7 @@ static int ov9282_init_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282)
> struct v4l2_fwnode_device_properties props;
> struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl;
> u32 hblank_min;
> + u32 exposure_us;
> u32 lpfr;
> int ret;
>
> @@ -1491,8 +1510,11 @@ static int ov9282_init_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282)
> /* Flash/Strobe controls */
> v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_HW_STROBE_SIGNAL, 0, 1, 1, 0);
>
> - v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION,
> - 0, 13900, 1, 8);
> + exposure_us = ov9282_exposure_to_us(ov9282, OV9282_EXPOSURE_DEFAULT);
> + ov9282->flash_duration = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr,
> + &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION,
> + 0, exposure_us,
> + 1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT);
Wrap this differently, please, e.g. after '='.
>
> ctrl = v4l2_ctrl_new_std_menu(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops,
> V4L2_CID_FLASH_STROBE_SOURCE,
>
To me the set looks good but I wouldn't mind about having a bit more
review.
--
Kind regards,
Sakari Ailus
Hi Sakari,
On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 12:16:51AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 05:05:15PM +0200, Richard Leitner wrote:
> > This patch sets the current exposure time as maximum for the
> > flash_duration control. As Flash/Strobes which are longer than the
> > exposure time have no effect.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@linux.dev>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> > index b104ae77f00e9e7777342e48b7bf3caa6d297f69..3253d9f271cb3caef6d85837ebec4f5beb466a4d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov9282.c
> > @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ struct ov9282_mode {
> > * @exp_ctrl: Pointer to exposure control
> > * @again_ctrl: Pointer to analog gain control
> > * @pixel_rate: Pointer to pixel rate control
> > + * @flash_duration: Pointer to flash duration control
> > * @vblank: Vertical blanking in lines
> > * @noncontinuous_clock: Selection of CSI2 noncontinuous clock mode
> > * @cur_mode: Pointer to current selected sensor mode
> > @@ -220,6 +221,7 @@ struct ov9282 {
> > struct v4l2_ctrl *again_ctrl;
> > };
> > struct v4l2_ctrl *pixel_rate;
> > + struct v4l2_ctrl *flash_duration;
> > u32 vblank;
> > bool noncontinuous_clock;
> > const struct ov9282_mode *cur_mode;
> > @@ -611,6 +613,15 @@ static int ov9282_update_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282,
> > mode->vblank_max, 1, mode->vblank);
> > }
> >
> > +static u32 ov9282_exposure_to_us(struct ov9282 *ov9282, u32 exposure)
> > +{
> > + /* calculate exposure time in µs */
> > + u32 frame_width = ov9282->cur_mode->width + ov9282->hblank_ctrl->val;
> > + u32 trow_us = (frame_width * 1000000UL) / ov9282->pixel_rate->val;
>
> Redundant parentheses.
True. Will fix this. Thanks for the catch.
>
> > +
> > + return exposure * trow_us;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * ov9282_update_exp_gain() - Set updated exposure and gain
> > * @ov9282: pointer to ov9282 device
> > @@ -622,9 +633,10 @@ static int ov9282_update_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282,
> > static int ov9282_update_exp_gain(struct ov9282 *ov9282, u32 exposure, u32 gain)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > + u32 exposure_us = ov9282_exposure_to_us(ov9282, exposure);
> >
> > - dev_dbg(ov9282->dev, "Set exp %u, analog gain %u",
> > - exposure, gain);
> > + dev_dbg(ov9282->dev, "Set exp %u (~%u us), analog gain %u",
> > + exposure, exposure_us, gain);
> >
> > ret = ov9282_write_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_HOLD, 1, 1);
> > if (ret)
> > @@ -635,6 +647,12 @@ static int ov9282_update_exp_gain(struct ov9282 *ov9282, u32 exposure, u32 gain)
> > goto error_release_group_hold;
> >
> > ret = ov9282_write_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_AGAIN, 1, gain);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto error_release_group_hold;
> > +
> > + ret = __v4l2_ctrl_modify_range(ov9282->flash_duration,
> > + 0, exposure_us, 1,
> > + OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT);
> >
> > error_release_group_hold:
> > ov9282_write_reg(ov9282, OV9282_REG_HOLD, 1, 0);
> > @@ -1420,6 +1438,7 @@ static int ov9282_init_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282)
> > struct v4l2_fwnode_device_properties props;
> > struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl;
> > u32 hblank_min;
> > + u32 exposure_us;
> > u32 lpfr;
> > int ret;
> >
> > @@ -1491,8 +1510,11 @@ static int ov9282_init_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282)
> > /* Flash/Strobe controls */
> > v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_HW_STROBE_SIGNAL, 0, 1, 1, 0);
> >
> > - v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION,
> > - 0, 13900, 1, 8);
> > + exposure_us = ov9282_exposure_to_us(ov9282, OV9282_EXPOSURE_DEFAULT);
> > + ov9282->flash_duration = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr,
> > + &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION,
> > + 0, exposure_us,
> > + 1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT);
>
> Wrap this differently, please, e.g. after '='.
This is wrapped the same way as all other v4l2_ctrl_new_X() calls in
ov9282_init_controls(). Therefore I've chosen to do it this way here
too.
So if I'm going to change this one, IMHO all others should be changed
too (exp_ctrl, again_ctrl, vblank_ctrl, pixel_rate, link_freq_ctrl,
hblank_ctrl). Is this intended?
If so I'm wondering if this would be a suiteable approach?
ov9282->flash_duration =
v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr,
&ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION,
0, exposure_us,
1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT);
It is fine for checkpatch, but introduces a newline for every ctrl and
tbh I'm not sure if it improves readability?
>
> >
> > ctrl = v4l2_ctrl_new_std_menu(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops,
> > V4L2_CID_FLASH_STROBE_SOURCE,
> >
>
> To me the set looks good but I wouldn't mind about having a bit more
> review.
Thanks for your continuous feedback! It improved the series a lot!
Is there anyhthing I can assists/help?
>
> --
> Kind regards,
>
> Sakari Ailus
regards;rl
Hi Richard, On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 09:13:35AM +0200, Richard Leitner wrote: > > > @@ -1491,8 +1510,11 @@ static int ov9282_init_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282) > > > /* Flash/Strobe controls */ > > > v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_HW_STROBE_SIGNAL, 0, 1, 1, 0); > > > > > > - v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, > > > - 0, 13900, 1, 8); > > > + exposure_us = ov9282_exposure_to_us(ov9282, OV9282_EXPOSURE_DEFAULT); > > > + ov9282->flash_duration = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, > > > + &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, > > > + 0, exposure_us, > > > + 1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT); > > > > Wrap this differently, please, e.g. after '='. > > This is wrapped the same way as all other v4l2_ctrl_new_X() calls in > ov9282_init_controls(). Therefore I've chosen to do it this way here > too. > > So if I'm going to change this one, IMHO all others should be changed > too (exp_ctrl, again_ctrl, vblank_ctrl, pixel_rate, link_freq_ctrl, > hblank_ctrl). Is this intended? > > If so I'm wondering if this would be a suiteable approach? > > ov9282->flash_duration = > v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, > &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, > 0, exposure_us, > 1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT); > > It is fine for checkpatch, but introduces a newline for every ctrl and > tbh I'm not sure if it improves readability? I don't think it's worse at least. You can also rewrap the rest of the lines: ov9282->flash_duration = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, 0, exposure_us, 1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT); > > > ctrl = v4l2_ctrl_new_std_menu(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, > > > V4L2_CID_FLASH_STROBE_SOURCE, > > > > > > > To me the set looks good but I wouldn't mind about having a bit more > > review. > > Thanks for your continuous feedback! It improved the series a lot! > > Is there anyhthing I can assists/help? I asked Laurent if he could check this out, it'd be nice to get these to 6.18. -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus
Hi Sakari, On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 10:48:48AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Richard, > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 09:13:35AM +0200, Richard Leitner wrote: > > > > @@ -1491,8 +1510,11 @@ static int ov9282_init_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282) > > > > /* Flash/Strobe controls */ > > > > v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_HW_STROBE_SIGNAL, 0, 1, 1, 0); > > > > > > > > - v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, > > > > - 0, 13900, 1, 8); > > > > + exposure_us = ov9282_exposure_to_us(ov9282, OV9282_EXPOSURE_DEFAULT); > > > > + ov9282->flash_duration = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, > > > > + &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, > > > > + 0, exposure_us, > > > > + 1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT); > > > > > > Wrap this differently, please, e.g. after '='. > > > > This is wrapped the same way as all other v4l2_ctrl_new_X() calls in > > ov9282_init_controls(). Therefore I've chosen to do it this way here > > too. > > > > So if I'm going to change this one, IMHO all others should be changed > > too (exp_ctrl, again_ctrl, vblank_ctrl, pixel_rate, link_freq_ctrl, > > hblank_ctrl). Is this intended? > > > > If so I'm wondering if this would be a suiteable approach? > > > > ov9282->flash_duration = > > v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, > > &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, > > 0, exposure_us, > > 1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT); > > > > It is fine for checkpatch, but introduces a newline for every ctrl and > > tbh I'm not sure if it improves readability? > > I don't think it's worse at least. You can also rewrap the rest of the > lines: > > ov9282->flash_duration = > v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, > V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, 0, exposure_us, 1, > OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT); > Ok. Fine with me ;) So I will adapt this patch and add a new patch which changes the wrapping for all remaining v4l2_ctrl_new_X() calls in ov9282_init_controls() to the series and send a v8? Or should I wait for feedback from Laurent for v8? > > > > ctrl = v4l2_ctrl_new_std_menu(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, > > > > V4L2_CID_FLASH_STROBE_SOURCE, > > > > > > > > > > To me the set looks good but I wouldn't mind about having a bit more > > > review. > > > > Thanks for your continuous feedback! It improved the series a lot! > > > > Is there anyhthing I can assists/help? > > I asked Laurent if he could check this out, it'd be nice to get these to > 6.18. Nice. Thanks! Yeah, that would be nice, indeed :) > > -- > Kind regards, > > Sakari Ailus regards;rl
Hi Richard, On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 10:24:46AM +0200, Richard Leitner wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 10:48:48AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 09:13:35AM +0200, Richard Leitner wrote: > > > > > @@ -1491,8 +1510,11 @@ static int ov9282_init_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282) > > > > > /* Flash/Strobe controls */ > > > > > v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_HW_STROBE_SIGNAL, 0, 1, 1, 0); > > > > > > > > > > - v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, > > > > > - 0, 13900, 1, 8); > > > > > + exposure_us = ov9282_exposure_to_us(ov9282, OV9282_EXPOSURE_DEFAULT); > > > > > + ov9282->flash_duration = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, > > > > > + &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, > > > > > + 0, exposure_us, > > > > > + 1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT); > > > > > > > > Wrap this differently, please, e.g. after '='. > > > > > > This is wrapped the same way as all other v4l2_ctrl_new_X() calls in > > > ov9282_init_controls(). Therefore I've chosen to do it this way here > > > too. > > > > > > So if I'm going to change this one, IMHO all others should be changed > > > too (exp_ctrl, again_ctrl, vblank_ctrl, pixel_rate, link_freq_ctrl, > > > hblank_ctrl). Is this intended? > > > > > > If so I'm wondering if this would be a suiteable approach? > > > > > > ov9282->flash_duration = > > > v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, > > > &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, > > > 0, exposure_us, > > > 1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT); > > > > > > It is fine for checkpatch, but introduces a newline for every ctrl and > > > tbh I'm not sure if it improves readability? > > > > I don't think it's worse at least. You can also rewrap the rest of the > > lines: > > > > ov9282->flash_duration = > > v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, > > V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, 0, exposure_us, 1, > > OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT); > > > > Ok. Fine with me ;) > > So I will adapt this patch and add a new patch which changes the wrapping > for all remaining v4l2_ctrl_new_X() calls in ov9282_init_controls() to the > series and send a v8? Or should I wait for feedback from Laurent for v8? Let's wait for Laurent to review this first. The changes I asked for are minor. -- Sakari Ailus
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.