On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 at 00:09, Ezequiel Garcia
<ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 02:25, Jonas Karlman <jonas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Francois Buergisser <fbuergisser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The setting of the motion vectors usage and the setting of motion
> > vectors address are currently done under different conditions.
> >
> > When decoding pre-recorded videos, this results of leaving the motion
> > vectors address unset, resulting in faulty memory accesses. Fix it
> > by using the same condition everywhere, which matches the profiles
> > that support motion vectors.
> >
> > Fixes: dea0a82f3d22 ("media: hantro: Add support for H264 decoding on G1")
> > Signed-off-by: Francois Buergisser <fbuergisser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman <jonas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_g1_h264_dec.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_g1_h264_dec.c b/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_g1_h264_dec.c
> > index 29130946dea4..a1cb18680200 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_g1_h264_dec.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/media/hantro/hantro_g1_h264_dec.c
> > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static void set_params(struct hantro_ctx *ctx)
> > if (sps->flags & V4L2_H264_SPS_FLAG_MB_ADAPTIVE_FRAME_FIELD)
> > reg |= G1_REG_DEC_CTRL0_SEQ_MBAFF_E;
> > reg |= G1_REG_DEC_CTRL0_PICORD_COUNT_E;
> > - if (dec_param->nal_ref_idc)
> > + if (sps->profile_idc > 66 && dec_param->nal_ref_idc)
> > reg |= G1_REG_DEC_CTRL0_WRITE_MVS_E;
> >
> > if (!(sps->flags & V4L2_H264_SPS_FLAG_FRAME_MBS_ONLY) &&
> > @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static void set_buffers(struct hantro_ctx *ctx)
> > vdpu_write_relaxed(vpu, dst_dma, G1_REG_ADDR_DST);
> >
> > /* Higher profiles require DMV buffer appended to reference frames. */
> > - if (ctrls->sps->profile_idc > 66) {
> > + if (ctrls->sps->profile_idc > 66 && ctrls->decode->nal_ref_idc) {
>
> How about a one-line function (purposely not a macro,
> to have type-checking) ? I think this should emphasize the fact that
> the condition
> needs to be the same.
>
Oops, just saw the next patch. Nevermind.
