Hi Dan,
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:21:09AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 03:20:16PM +0100, jacopo mondi wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 12:59:54PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > [ I know you're just copying files, but you might have a fix for these
> > > since you're looking at the code. - dan ]
> >
> > According to the static analyzer I should simply substitute all those
> > expressions with 0s.
>
> I really try not to print warnings for stuff which is just white space
> complaints like that. For example, Smatch ignores inconsistent NULL
> checking if every caller passes non-NULL parameters or Smatch ignores
> comparing unsigned with zero if it's just clamping to between zero and
> max.
>
> > I would instead keep them for sake of readability
> > and accordance with register description in the video decoder manual.
> >
Sorry, I did not make myself clear, see below!
> > Thanks
> > j
> >
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > > 511 static int tw9910_s_std(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, v4l2_std_id norm)
> > > 512 {
> > > 513 struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
> > > 514 struct tw9910_priv *priv = to_tw9910(client);
> > > 515 const unsigned int hact = 720;
> > > 516 const unsigned int hdelay = 15;
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > 517 unsigned int vact;
> > > 518 unsigned int vdelay;
> > > 519 int ret;
> > > 520
> > > 521 if (!(norm & (V4L2_STD_NTSC | V4L2_STD_PAL)))
> > > 522 return -EINVAL;
> > > 523
> > > 524 priv->norm = norm;
> > > 525 if (norm & V4L2_STD_525_60) {
> > > 526 vact = 240;
> > > 527 vdelay = 18;
> > > 528 ret = tw9910_mask_set(client, VVBI, 0x10, 0x10);
> > > 529 } else {
> > > 530 vact = 288;
> > > 531 vdelay = 24;
> > > 532 ret = tw9910_mask_set(client, VVBI, 0x10, 0x00);
> > > 533 }
> > > 534 if (!ret)
> > > 535 ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, CROP_HI,
> > > 536 ((vdelay >> 2) & 0xc0) |
> > > 537 ((vact >> 4) & 0x30) |
> > > 538 ((hdelay >> 6) & 0x0c) |
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > 15 >> 6 is zero.
> > >
> > > 539 ((hact >> 8) & 0x03));
>
> I looked at the spec and it seems to me that we should doing something
> like:
>
> (((vdelay >> 8) & 0x3) << 6) |
> (((vact >> 8) & 0x3) << 4) |
> (((hedelay >> 8) & 0x3) << 2) |
> ((hact >> 8) & 0x03);
>
>
> But this is the first time I've looked and it and I can't even be sure
> I'm looking in the right place.
That's correct. I admit I haven't looked at the register composition in
detail, I just didn't want to substitute the whole expressions with
0s as it hides what values the register is composed of and that was
the "accordance with register description" I mentioned...
In your suggested fix:
> (((vdelay >> 8) & 0x3) << 6) |
> (((vact >> 8) & 0x3) << 4) |
> (((hedelay >> 8) & 0x3) << 2) |
> ((hact >> 8) & 0x03);
>
Won't your analyzer in that case point out that
"15 >> 8 is zero" again? I may have been underestimating it though
Thanks for noticing this!
j
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
