Hello Sylwester, Quoting Sylwester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxx>:
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)
OK, I'll send a patch for this shortly. Thanks for clarifying. -- 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
