Hi Tommaso, On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > Hi Laurent, > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 03:02:36PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Tommaso, > > > > Thank you for the patch. > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > > > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > > > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > > > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > > > The commit message should have explained why clamping is better than > > picking a default value, as that's a functional change. If you propose > > an updated commit message in a reply, I think Sakari can update the > > patch when applying the series to his tree, there's no need for a v4. > > What about: > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > Clamp function make sure that if the setted value exceeds the limits is > replaced with min_fr/max_fr instead of setting the value readed back > from the hw. > > What do you think? I used this, hopefully it's ok: media: i2c: alvium: fix req_fr check in alvium_s_frame_interval() req_fr check in alvium_s_frame_interval() is incorrect. In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. Ensure the requested frame rate remains within the supported range between min_fr and max_fr by clamping it. Also remove the unused dft_fr argument of alvium_get_frame_interval(). -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus
