Em Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:16:55 +0100
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> On 14/02/18 18:02, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:34:17 +0100
> > Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >
> >> On 14/02/18 17:03, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >>> Em Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:31:18 +0100
> >>> Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> Convert all g/s_parm calls to g/s_frame_interval. This allows us
> >>>> to remove the g/s_parm ops since those are a duplicate of
> >>>> g/s_frame_interval.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/media/i2c/mt9v011.c | 31 +++++++-------------
> >>>> drivers/media/i2c/ov6650.c | 35 +++++++++-------------
> >>>> drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c | 24 +++++++--------
> >>>> drivers/media/i2c/ov7740.c | 31 +++++++-------------
> >>>> drivers/media/i2c/tvp514x.c | 39 +++++++++----------------
> >>>> drivers/media/i2c/vs6624.c | 29 +++++++-----------
> >>>> drivers/media/platform/atmel/atmel-isc.c | 10 ++-----
> >>>> drivers/media/platform/atmel/atmel-isi.c | 12 ++------
> >>>> drivers/media/platform/blackfin/bfin_capture.c | 14 +++------
> >>>> drivers/media/platform/marvell-ccic/mcam-core.c | 12 ++++----
> >>>> drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/soc_camera.c | 10 ++++---
> >>>> drivers/media/platform/via-camera.c | 4 +--
> >>>> drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-video.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>> 13 files changed, 122 insertions(+), 165 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/mt9v011.c b/drivers/media/i2c/mt9v011.c
> >>>> index 5e29064fae91..3e23c5b0de1f 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/mt9v011.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/mt9v011.c
> >>>> @@ -364,33 +364,24 @@ static int mt9v011_set_fmt(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> -static int mt9v011_g_parm(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_streamparm *parms)
> >>>> +static int mt9v011_g_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >>>> + struct v4l2_subdev_frame_interval *ival)
> >>>> {
> >>>> - struct v4l2_captureparm *cp = &parms->parm.capture;
> >>>> -
> >>>> - if (parms->type != V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE)
> >>>> - return -EINVAL;
> >>>> -
> >>>> - memset(cp, 0, sizeof(struct v4l2_captureparm));
> >>>> - cp->capability = V4L2_CAP_TIMEPERFRAME;
> >>>> + memset(ival->reserved, 0, sizeof(ival->reserved));
> >>>
> >>> Hmm.. why to repeat memset everywhere? If the hole idea is to stop abusing,
> >>> the best would be to do, instead:
> >>
> >> g_frame_interval is called by bridge drivers through the subdev ops. So that
> >> path doesn't go through subdev_do_ioctl(). So it doesn't help putting it in
> >> v4l2-subdev.c.
> >
> > True, but you could also do the same for v4l2 ioctl() handling logic.
> >
> > That would mean just two places with memset() instead of repeating the same
> > pattern everywhere.
> >
> >> That doesn't mean it shouldn't be there as well. I believe my MC patch series
> >> actually adds the memset in subdev_do_ioctl.
>
> What could be done is that this patch https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/46955/
> is applied first. After that these memsets can be removed since internally we
> don't need to touch them.
Works for me.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c
> >>> index c5639817db34..b18b418c080f 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-subdev.c
> >>> @@ -350,6 +350,7 @@ static long subdev_do_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, void *arg)
> >>> if (fi->pad >= sd->entity.num_pads)
> >>> return -EINVAL;
> >>>
> >>> + memset(fi->reserved, 0, sizeof(ival->reserved));
> >>> return v4l2_subdev_call(sd, video, g_frame_interval, arg);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> (same applies to s_frame_interval).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> calc_fps(sd,
> >>>> - &cp->timeperframe.numerator,
> >>>> - &cp->timeperframe.denominator);
> >>>> + &ival->interval.numerator,
> >>>> + &ival->interval.denominator);
> >>>>
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> -static int mt9v011_s_parm(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_streamparm *parms)
> >>>> +static int mt9v011_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >>>> + struct v4l2_subdev_frame_interval *ival)
> >>>> {
> >>>> - struct v4l2_captureparm *cp = &parms->parm.capture;
> >>>> - struct v4l2_fract *tpf = &cp->timeperframe;
> >>>> + struct v4l2_fract *tpf = &ival->interval;
> >>>> u16 speed;
> >>>>
> >>>> - if (parms->type != V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE)
> >>>> - return -EINVAL;
> >>>> - if (cp->extendedmode != 0)
> >>>> - return -EINVAL;
> >>>> -
> >>>
> >>> Hmm... why are you removing those sanity checks everywhere?
> >>> The core doesn't do it.
> >>>
> >>> All the above comments also apply to the other files modified by
> >>> this patch.
> >>
> >> struct v4l2_subdev_frame_interval has neither type nor extendedmode.
> >>
> >> The check for type is done in the v4l2_g/s_parm_cap helpers instead.
> >
> > Well, the subdev handler at v4l2-subdev.c doesn't seem to be checking it.
>
> ????
>
> Are you confusing struct v4l2_streamparm with struct v4l2_subdev_frame_interval?
>
> v4l2_subdev.c deals with the latter, and struct v4l2_subdev_frame_interval has
> no type field. There is nothing to check.
>
> 'type' makes no sense in subdev drivers anyway since it refers to a buffer type
> and subdevs do not deal with buffers.
Yeah, you're right: those checks can be removed.
> >> And extendedmode is always set to 0.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> + memset(ival->reserved, 0, sizeof(ival->reserved));
> >>>> speed = calc_speed(sd, tpf->numerator, tpf->denominator);
> >>>>
> >>>> mt9v011_write(sd, R0A_MT9V011_CLK_SPEED, speed);
> >>>> @@ -469,8 +460,8 @@ static const struct v4l2_subdev_core_ops mt9v011_core_ops = {
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> static const struct v4l2_subdev_video_ops mt9v011_video_ops = {
> >>>> - .g_parm = mt9v011_g_parm,
> >>>> - .s_parm = mt9v011_s_parm,
> >>>> + .g_frame_interval = mt9v011_g_frame_interval,
> >>>> + .s_frame_interval = mt9v011_s_frame_interval,
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> static const struct v4l2_subdev_pad_ops mt9v011_pad_ops = {
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov6650.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov6650.c
> >>>> index 8975d16b2b24..3f962dae7534 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov6650.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov6650.c
> >>>> @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ struct ov6650 {
> >>>> struct v4l2_rect rect; /* sensor cropping window */
> >>>> unsigned long pclk_limit; /* from host */
> >>>> unsigned long pclk_max; /* from resolution and format */
> >>>> - struct v4l2_fract tpf; /* as requested with s_parm */
> >>>> + struct v4l2_fract tpf; /* as requested with s_frame_interval */
> >>>> u32 code;
> >>>> enum v4l2_colorspace colorspace;
> >>>> };
> >>>> @@ -723,42 +723,33 @@ static int ov6650_enum_mbus_code(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> -static int ov6650_g_parm(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_streamparm *parms)
> >>>> +static int ov6650_g_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >>>> + struct v4l2_subdev_frame_interval *ival)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
> >>>> struct ov6650 *priv = to_ov6650(client);
> >>>> - struct v4l2_captureparm *cp = &parms->parm.capture;
> >>>>
> >>>> - if (parms->type != V4L2_BUF_TYPE_VIDEO_CAPTURE)
> >>>> - return -EINVAL;
> >>>> -
> >>>> - memset(cp, 0, sizeof(*cp));
> >>>> - cp->capability = V4L2_CAP_TIMEPERFRAME;
> >>>> - cp->timeperframe.numerator = GET_CLKRC_DIV(to_clkrc(&priv->tpf,
> >>>> + memset(ival->reserved, 0, sizeof(ival->reserved));
> >>>> + ival->interval.numerator = GET_CLKRC_DIV(to_clkrc(&priv->tpf,
> >>>> priv->pclk_limit, priv->pclk_max));
> >>>> - cp->timeperframe.denominator = FRAME_RATE_MAX;
> >>>> + ival->interval.denominator = FRAME_RATE_MAX;
> >>>>
> >>>> dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Frame interval: %u/%u s\n",
> >>>> - cp->timeperframe.numerator, cp->timeperframe.denominator);
> >>>> + ival->interval.numerator, ival->interval.denominator);
> >>>
> >>> Hmm... not sure if a debug is needed here. Yet, if this is needed,
> >>> IMHO, it would make mroe sense to move it to the core.
> >>
> >> The core doesn't see this if this subdev op is called from a bridge driver.
> >
> > True, but, when calling via a bridge driver, there's already a way to
> > enable such kind debug.
>
> It can debug VIDIOC_G/S_PARM, not the g_frame_interval op. Also, when called
> via a v4l-subdev device node there is currently NO core logging.
>
> For the record, I don't really care about this debug statement myself one
> way or another, but changing this one way or another doesn't belong in this
> patch series.
Ok. Yet, IMHO, it is probably safe to just remove the debug statements
on the above driver, as I fail to see that just ov6650 driver would
need this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
Thanks,
Mauro
