Hi, On 9/6/24 10:05 AM, David Laight wrote: > From: Hans de Goede >> Sent: 06 September 2024 08:53 >> >> Hi Mauro, >> >> On 9/6/24 8:15 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> Em Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:51:56 +0200 >>> Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >>> >>>> Using clamp_t() instead of min_t(max_t()) is easier to read. >>>> >>>> It also reduces the size of the preprocessed files by ~ 193 ko. >>>> (see [1] for a discussion about it) >>>> >>>> $ ls -l ia_css_eed1_8.host*.i >>>> 4829993 27 juil. 14:36 ia_css_eed1_8.host.old.i >>>> 4636649 27 juil. 14:42 ia_css_eed1_8.host.new.i >>>> >>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/23bdb6fc8d884ceebeb6e8b8653b8cfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> .../isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c | 24 +++++++++---------- >>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c >> b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c >>>> index e4fc90f88e24..96c13ebc4331 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c >>>> @@ -172,25 +172,25 @@ ia_css_eed1_8_vmem_encode( >>>> base = shuffle_block * i; >>>> >>>> for (j = 0; j < IA_CSS_NUMBER_OF_DEW_ENHANCE_SEGMENTS; j++) { >>>> - to->e_dew_enh_x[0][base + j] = min_t(int, max_t(int, >>>> - from->dew_enhance_seg_x[j], 0), >>>> - 8191); >>>> - to->e_dew_enh_y[0][base + j] = min_t(int, max_t(int, >>>> - from->dew_enhance_seg_y[j], -8192), >>>> - 8191); >>>> + to->e_dew_enh_x[0][base + j] = clamp_t(int, >>>> + from->dew_enhance_seg_x[j], >>>> + 0, 8191); >>>> + to->e_dew_enh_y[0][base + j] = clamp_t(int, >>>> + from->dew_enhance_seg_y[j], >>>> + -8192, 8191); >>> >>> Such change introduces two warnings on smatch: >>> >>> drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c: >> drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c:177 >> ia_css_eed1_8_vmem_encode() warn: assigning (-8192) to unsigned variable 'to->e_dew_enh_y[0][base + >> j]' >>> drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c: >> drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c:182 >> ia_css_eed1_8_vmem_encode() warn: assigning (-8192) to unsigned variable 'to->e_dew_enh_a[0][base + >> j]' >>> >>> Should dew_enhance_seg_x and dew_enhance_seg_y be converted to signed? >> >> These already are s32, the problem is that e_dew_enh_a is of type t_vmem_elem which is: >> >> typedef u16 t_vmem_elem; > > Ugg... :-) > >> >> And that type is used in a lot of places, so we cannot >> just change that. >> >> I guess we could add a t_signed_vmem_elem (s16) and use that for these vmem-arrays ? >> >> I tried fixing it like this: <snip> >> /* enable group hold */ >> - ret = cci_multi_reg_write(sensor->regmap, t4ka3_param_hold, >> - ARRAY_SIZE(t4ka3_param_hold), NULL); >> - if (ret) >> - goto error_powerdown; >> - >> - ret = cci_multi_reg_write(sensor->regmap, sensor->res->regs, sensor->res->regs_len, NULL); >> + cci_multi_reg_write(sensor->regmap, t4ka3_param_hold, >> + ARRAY_SIZE(t4ka3_param_hold), &ret); >> + cci_multi_reg_write(sensor->regmap, sensor->res->regs, >> + sensor->res->regs_len, &ret); >> if (ret) >> goto error_powerdown; > > Isn't that unrelated? Yes my bad. >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c >> b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c >> index b79d78e5b77f..c9043d516192 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/isp/kernels/eed1_8/ia_css_eed1_8.host.c >> @@ -172,21 +172,21 @@ ia_css_eed1_8_vmem_encode( >> base = shuffle_block * i; >> >> for (j = 0; j < IA_CSS_NUMBER_OF_DEW_ENHANCE_SEGMENTS; j++) { >> - to->e_dew_enh_x[0][base + j] = clamp(from->dew_enhance_seg_x[j], >> - 0, 8191); >> - to->e_dew_enh_y[0][base + j] = clamp(from->dew_enhance_seg_y[j], >> - -8192, 8191); >> + to->e_dew_enh_x[0][base + j] = (u16)clamp(from->dew_enhance_seg_x[j], >> + 0, 8191); >> + to->e_dew_enh_y[0][base + j] = (u16)clamp(from->dew_enhance_seg_y[j], >> + -8192, 8191); > > How about an explicit clamp(...) & 0xffffu? Yes that should work, I tihnk. I actually have changed the type of e_dew_enh_y and e_dew_enh_f to s16 now and that does the trick of silencing smatch and seems like a nicer fix. I need to go and test the fix on actual hw to make sure nothing breaks and then I'll submit it. > >> >> for (j = 0; j < (IA_CSS_NUMBER_OF_DEW_ENHANCE_SEGMENTS - 1); j++) { >> - to->e_dew_enh_a[0][base + j] = clamp(from->dew_enhance_seg_slope[j], >> - -8192, 8191); >> + to->e_dew_enh_a[0][base + j] = (u16)clamp(from->dew_enhance_seg_slope[j], >> + -8192, 8191); >> /* Convert dew_enhance_seg_exp to flag: >> * 0 -> 0 >> * 1...13 -> 1 >> */ >> - to->e_dew_enh_f[0][base + j] = clamp(from->dew_enhance_seg_exp[j], >> - 0, 13) > 0; >> + to->e_dew_enh_f[0][base + j] = (u16)clamp(from->dew_enhance_seg_exp[j], >> + 0, 13) > 0; > > Isn't the RHS just from->dew_enhance_seg_exp[j] > 0 ? > That shouldn't be generating any kind of warning anyway. It indeed does not generate a warning I changed all the clamp() calls here to keep things consistent. Regards, Hans
