On 12/02/2018 09:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 2:47 PM Gabriel Francisco Mandaji
> <gfmandaji@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> @@ -667,10 +653,28 @@ static void vivid_overlay(struct vivid_dev *dev, struct vivid_buffer *buf)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static void vivid_cap_update_frame_period(struct vivid_dev *dev)
>> +{
>> + u64 f_period;
>> +
>> + f_period = (u64)dev->timeperframe_vid_cap.numerator * 1000000000;
>> + do_div(f_period, dev->timeperframe_vid_cap.denominator);
>> + if (dev->field_cap == V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE)
>> + do_div(f_period, 2);
>> + /*
>> + * If "End of Frame", then offset the exposure time by 0.9
>> + * of the frame period.
>> + */
>> + dev->cap_frame_eof_offset = f_period * 9;
>> + do_div(dev->cap_frame_eof_offset, 10);
>> + dev->cap_frame_period = f_period;
>> +}
>
> Doing two or three do_div() operations is going to make this rather
> expensive on 32-bit architectures, and it looks like this happens for
> each frame?
>
> Since each one is a multiplication followed by a division, could this
> be changed to using a different factor followed by a bit shift?
The division by 2 can obviously be replaced by a shift, and the
'End of Frame' calculation can be simplified as well by multiplying by
7 and dividing by 8 (again a simple shift): this equals 0.875 which is
close enough to 0.9 (so update the comment as well).
It's all a bit overkill since this function isn't called very often,
but these are easy changes to make.
Regards,
Hans
