Hi Sylwester,
On 12/03/14 12:14, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On 02/12/14 13:21, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> -static int s5k6aa_set_crop(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_subdev_fh *fh,
>> - struct v4l2_subdev_crop *crop)
>> +static int s5k6aa_set_selection(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>> + struct v4l2_subdev_fh *fh,
>> + struct v4l2_subdev_selection *sel)
>> {
>> struct s5k6aa *s5k6aa = to_s5k6aa(sd);
>> struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt *mf;
>> unsigned int max_x, max_y;
>> struct v4l2_rect *crop_r;
>>
>> + if (sel->pad || sel->target != V4L2_SEL_TGT_CROP)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>
> Isn't checking sel->pad redundant here ? There is already the pad index
> validation in check_selection() in v4l2-subdev.c and this driver has only
> one pad.
If it is called from a bridge driver, then it hasn't gone through
check_selection().
That said, if it is called from a bridge driver, then one might expect
correct usage of pad.
Laurent, do you have an opinion on this?
Regards,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
