On 23/05/18 10:47, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> thank you for the review comments.
>
> On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 19:47 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> On 22/05/18 18:29, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>>> Limit frame sizes to the [1, UINT_MAX-1] interval, media bus formats to
>>> the available list of formats, and initialize pad and try formats.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Rui Miguel Silva <rui.silva@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/media/platform/video-mux.c | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/video-mux.c b/drivers/media/platform/video-mux.c
>>> index 1fb887293337..ade1dae706aa 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/video-mux.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/video-mux.c
>>> @@ -180,6 +180,87 @@ static int video_mux_set_format(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>>> if (!source_mbusformat)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> + /* No size limitations except V4L2 compliance requirements */
>>> + v4l_bound_align_image(&sdformat->format.width, 1, UINT_MAX - 1, 0,
>>> + &sdformat->format.height, 1, UINT_MAX - 1, 0, 0);
>>
>> This is a bit dubious. I would pick more realistic min/max values like 16 and
>
> Why 16? A grayscale or RGB sensor could crop down to 1x1, see mt9v032
> for example.
Was that ever tested? Just because the software allows it, doesn't mean it actually
works.
>
>> 65536. UINT_MAX - 1 will overflow whenever code increments/multiplies it for some
>> reason, which can cause all sorts of weird issues.
>
> Ok. Should v4l2-compliance check for > 65536 then, instead of (or
> additionally to) UINT_MAX?
I think so, yes.
>
>>> +
>>> + /* All formats except LVDS and vendor specific formats are acceptable */
>>> + switch (sdformat->format.code) {
>>> + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB444_1X12:
>>> + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB444_2X8_PADHI_BE:
> [...]
>>> + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_JPEG_1X8:
>>> + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_AHSV8888_1X32:
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + sdformat->format.code = MEDIA_BUS_FMT_Y8_1X8;
>>
>> Add a break here.
>
> Will do.
>
>>> + }
>>> + if (sdformat->format.field == V4L2_FIELD_ANY)
>>> + sdformat->format.field = V4L2_FIELD_NONE;
>>> +
>>> mutex_lock(&vmux->lock);
>>>
>>> /* Source pad mirrors active sink pad, no limitations on sink pads */
>>> @@ -197,11 +278,33 @@ static int video_mux_set_format(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static int video_mux_open(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_subdev_fh *fh)
>>> +{
>>> + struct video_mux *vmux = v4l2_subdev_to_video_mux(sd);
>>> + struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt *mbusformat;
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(&vmux->lock);
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < sd->entity.num_pads; i++) {
>>> + mbusformat = v4l2_subdev_get_try_format(sd, fh->pad, i);
>>> + *mbusformat = vmux->format_mbus[i];
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + mutex_unlock(&vmux->lock);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> This isn't the right approach. Instead implement the init_cfg pad op.
>
> How embarrassing, yes.
>
>>> +
>>> static const struct v4l2_subdev_pad_ops video_mux_pad_ops = {
>>> .get_fmt = video_mux_get_format,
>>> .set_fmt = video_mux_set_format,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +static const struct v4l2_subdev_internal_ops video_mux_internal_ops = {
>>> + .open = video_mux_open,
>>> +};
>>
>> So this can be dropped.
>
> Ok, thanks!
>
> regards
> Philipp
>
Regards,
Hans
