Hi Hans,
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/18/2015 10:06 AM, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 07:18:42PM +0200, Alex Dowad wrote:
>>>> This fixes a checkpatch style error in vpfe_buffer_queue_setup.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Dowad <alexinbeijing@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c b/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c
>>>> index 06d48d5..04a687c 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c
>>>> @@ -1095,7 +1095,7 @@ vpfe_buffer_queue_setup(struct vb2_queue *vq, const struct v4l2_format *fmt,
>>>> size = video->fmt.fmt.pix.sizeimage;
>>>>
>>>> if (vpfe_dev->video_limit) {
>>>> - while (size * *nbuffers > vpfe_dev->video_limit)
>>>> + while (size * (*nbuffers) > vpfe_dev->video_limit)
>>>> (*nbuffers)--;
>>>> }
>>>> if (pipe->state == VPFE_PIPELINE_STREAM_CONTINUOUS) {
>>>
>>> Style issue aside, is there a reason not to use
>>>
>>> if (size * *nbuffers > vpfe_dev->video_limit)
>>> *nbuffers = vpfe_dev->video_limit / size;
>>>
>>> instead?
>>>
>> I would prefer this.
>
> As far as I can see video_limit is never set at all, so this code (and the video_limit
> field) can just be removed.
>
> I think this is a left-over from old code, long since removed.
>
Yes makes sense, I'll fix it up and post a patch for it.
Cheers,
--Prabhakar Lad
--
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
