| Message ID | 20231220124023.2801417-6-tomm.merciai@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | media: i2c: alvium: store frame interval in subdev | expand |
Hi Tommaso, Thank you for the patch. On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. The commit message should have explained why clamping is better than picking a default value, as that's a functional change. If you propose an updated commit message in a reply, I think Sakari can update the patch when applying the series to his tree, there's no need for a v4. > Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tomm.merciai@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > --- > drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c | 12 ++++-------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c > index 240bf991105e..01111a00902d 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c > @@ -1171,12 +1171,10 @@ static int alvium_set_bayer_pattern(struct alvium_dev *alvium, > } > > static int alvium_get_frame_interval(struct alvium_dev *alvium, > - u64 *dft_fr, u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr) > + u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr) > { > int ret = 0; > > - alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_RW, > - dft_fr, &ret); > alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MIN_R, > min_fr, &ret); > alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MAX_R, > @@ -1647,7 +1645,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > { > struct alvium_dev *alvium = sd_to_alvium(sd); > struct device *dev = &alvium->i2c_client->dev; > - u64 req_fr, dft_fr, min_fr, max_fr; > + u64 req_fr, min_fr, max_fr; > struct v4l2_fract *interval; > int ret; > > @@ -1657,7 +1655,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > if (fi->interval.denominator == 0) > return -EINVAL; > > - ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &dft_fr, &min_fr, &max_fr); > + ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &min_fr, &max_fr); > if (ret) { > dev_err(dev, "Fail to get frame interval\n"); > return ret; > @@ -1670,9 +1668,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > req_fr = (u64)((fi->interval.denominator * USEC_PER_SEC) / > fi->interval.numerator); > - > - if (req_fr >= max_fr && req_fr <= min_fr) > - req_fr = dft_fr; > + req_fr = clamp(req_fr, min_fr, max_fr); > > interval = v4l2_subdev_state_get_interval(sd_state, 0); >
Hi Laurent, On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 03:02:36PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Tommaso, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > The commit message should have explained why clamping is better than > picking a default value, as that's a functional change. If you propose > an updated commit message in a reply, I think Sakari can update the > patch when applying the series to his tree, there's no need for a v4. What about: Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. Clamp function make sure that if the setted value exceeds the limits is replaced with min_fr/max_fr instead of setting the value readed back from the hw. What do you think? Thanks & Regards, Tommaso > > > Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tomm.merciai@gmail.com> > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > > > --- > > drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c | 12 ++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c > > index 240bf991105e..01111a00902d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c > > @@ -1171,12 +1171,10 @@ static int alvium_set_bayer_pattern(struct alvium_dev *alvium, > > } > > > > static int alvium_get_frame_interval(struct alvium_dev *alvium, > > - u64 *dft_fr, u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr) > > + u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr) > > { > > int ret = 0; > > > > - alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_RW, > > - dft_fr, &ret); > > alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MIN_R, > > min_fr, &ret); > > alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MAX_R, > > @@ -1647,7 +1645,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > { > > struct alvium_dev *alvium = sd_to_alvium(sd); > > struct device *dev = &alvium->i2c_client->dev; > > - u64 req_fr, dft_fr, min_fr, max_fr; > > + u64 req_fr, min_fr, max_fr; > > struct v4l2_fract *interval; > > int ret; > > > > @@ -1657,7 +1655,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > if (fi->interval.denominator == 0) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > - ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &dft_fr, &min_fr, &max_fr); > > + ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &min_fr, &max_fr); > > if (ret) { > > dev_err(dev, "Fail to get frame interval\n"); > > return ret; > > @@ -1670,9 +1668,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > > > req_fr = (u64)((fi->interval.denominator * USEC_PER_SEC) / > > fi->interval.numerator); > > - > > - if (req_fr >= max_fr && req_fr <= min_fr) > > - req_fr = dft_fr; > > + req_fr = clamp(req_fr, min_fr, max_fr); > > > > interval = v4l2_subdev_state_get_interval(sd_state, 0); > > > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart
Hi Tommaso, On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > Hi Laurent, > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 03:02:36PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Tommaso, > > > > Thank you for the patch. > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > > > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > > > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > > > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > > > The commit message should have explained why clamping is better than > > picking a default value, as that's a functional change. If you propose > > an updated commit message in a reply, I think Sakari can update the > > patch when applying the series to his tree, there's no need for a v4. > > What about: > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > Clamp function make sure that if the setted value exceeds the limits is > replaced with min_fr/max_fr instead of setting the value readed back > from the hw. > > What do you think? I used this, hopefully it's ok: media: i2c: alvium: fix req_fr check in alvium_s_frame_interval() req_fr check in alvium_s_frame_interval() is incorrect. In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. Ensure the requested frame rate remains within the supported range between min_fr and max_fr by clamping it. Also remove the unused dft_fr argument of alvium_get_frame_interval().
Hi Sakari, Sorry for delay. On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:14:35AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Tommaso, > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > Hi Laurent, > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 03:02:36PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > Hi Tommaso, > > > > > > Thank you for the patch. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > > > > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > > > > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > > > > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > > > > > The commit message should have explained why clamping is better than > > > picking a default value, as that's a functional change. If you propose > > > an updated commit message in a reply, I think Sakari can update the > > > patch when applying the series to his tree, there's no need for a v4. > > > > What about: > > > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > > > Clamp function make sure that if the setted value exceeds the limits is > > replaced with min_fr/max_fr instead of setting the value readed back > > from the hw. > > > > What do you think? > > I used this, hopefully it's ok: > > media: i2c: alvium: fix req_fr check in alvium_s_frame_interval() > > req_fr check in alvium_s_frame_interval() is incorrect. In particular > req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. Ensure the requested > frame rate remains within the supported range between min_fr and max_fr by > clamping it. > > Also remove the unused dft_fr argument of alvium_get_frame_interval(). Looks good to me! :) Thanks for this. Regards, Tommaso > > -- > Kind regards, > > Sakari Ailus
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c index 240bf991105e..01111a00902d 100644 --- a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c @@ -1171,12 +1171,10 @@ static int alvium_set_bayer_pattern(struct alvium_dev *alvium, } static int alvium_get_frame_interval(struct alvium_dev *alvium, - u64 *dft_fr, u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr) + u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr) { int ret = 0; - alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_RW, - dft_fr, &ret); alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MIN_R, min_fr, &ret); alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MAX_R, @@ -1647,7 +1645,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, { struct alvium_dev *alvium = sd_to_alvium(sd); struct device *dev = &alvium->i2c_client->dev; - u64 req_fr, dft_fr, min_fr, max_fr; + u64 req_fr, min_fr, max_fr; struct v4l2_fract *interval; int ret; @@ -1657,7 +1655,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, if (fi->interval.denominator == 0) return -EINVAL; - ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &dft_fr, &min_fr, &max_fr); + ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &min_fr, &max_fr); if (ret) { dev_err(dev, "Fail to get frame interval\n"); return ret; @@ -1670,9 +1668,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, req_fr = (u64)((fi->interval.denominator * USEC_PER_SEC) / fi->interval.numerator); - - if (req_fr >= max_fr && req_fr <= min_fr) - req_fr = dft_fr; + req_fr = clamp(req_fr, min_fr, max_fr); interval = v4l2_subdev_state_get_interval(sd_state, 0);
Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tomm.merciai@gmail.com> --- drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c | 12 ++++-------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)