On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, morimoto.kuninori@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Dear Guennadi > > Thank you for checking > > > Wouldn't it be easier to use > > > > unsigned char edge_strength; > > unsigned char edge_threshold; > > unsigned char edge_low; > > unsigned char edge_high; > > > > and thus avoid all that shifting? > > Yes. it is easier to use. > But, driver should judge whether to use this setting or not. > Because this setting is optional. > > Because user setting might be 0, > we can not judge it like this. > if (edge_xxx) > ov772x_mask_set( xxxx ) > > So, we can use un-used bit to judge whether to use it. > and edge_strength and edge_threshold have un-used bit. > But edge_low and edge_high doesn't have un-used bit. > > Another way to judge it is to use pointer or to add another variable. > But I don't like these style. > What do you think about this ? Is edge_strength == 0 a useful edge configuration? Cannot you use it as a test whether to set all edge parameters or not? If you cannot, well, just do the same as what you have done with 32-bits - use one bit in strength as "edge enable" - just exactly in the same way as in your patch. Like if (edge_strength & EDGE_ENABLE) { set_strength; set_threshold; set_low; set_high; } Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html