Hi Gustavo,
On 05/04/2017 09:05 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> The issue here is that the position of arguments in the call to
> camif_hw_set_effect() function do not match the order of the parameters:
>
> camif->colorfx_cb is passed to cr
> camif->colorfx_cr is passed to cb
>
> This is the function prototype:
>
> void camif_hw_set_effect(struct camif_dev *camif, unsigned int effect,
> unsigned int cr, unsigned int cb)
>
> My question here is if this is intentional?
>
> In case it is not, I will send a patch to fix it. But first it would be
> great to hear any comment about it.
You are right, it seems you have found a real bug. Feel free to send a patch.
The best thing to do now might be to change the function prototype to:
void camif_hw_set_effect(struct camif_dev *camif, unsigned int effect,
unsigned int cb, unsigned int cr)
--
Regards,
Sylwester
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
