Hello everybody,
While looking into Coverity ID 1248800 I ran into the following piece
of code at drivers/media/platform/s3c-camif/camif-capture.c:67:
/* Locking: called with camif->slock spinlock held */
static int s3c_camif_hw_init(struct camif_dev *camif, struct camif_vp *vp)
{
const struct s3c_camif_variant *variant = camif->variant;
if (camif->sensor.sd == NULL || vp->out_fmt == NULL)
return -EINVAL;
if (variant->ip_revision == S3C244X_CAMIF_IP_REV)
camif_hw_clear_fifo_overflow(vp);
camif_hw_set_camera_bus(camif);
camif_hw_set_source_format(camif);
camif_hw_set_camera_crop(camif);
camif_hw_set_test_pattern(camif, camif->test_pattern);
if (variant->has_img_effect)
camif_hw_set_effect(camif, camif->colorfx,
camif->colorfx_cb, camif->colorfx_cr);
if (variant->ip_revision == S3C6410_CAMIF_IP_REV)
camif_hw_set_input_path(vp);
camif_cfg_video_path(vp);
vp->state &= ~ST_VP_CONFIG;
return 0;
}
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.
By the way... the same is happening at
drivers/media/platform/s3c-camif/camif-capture.c:366
Thank you
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
--
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
