On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Németh Márton wrote:
> Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > You didn't reply to my most important objection:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Németh Márton wrote:
> >
> >> diff -r 31eaa9423f98 linux/include/media/soc_camera.h
> >> --- a/linux/include/media/soc_camera.h Mon Jan 25 15:04:15 2010 -0200
> >> +++ b/linux/include/media/soc_camera.h Wed Jan 27 20:49:57 2010 +0100
> >> @@ -264,9 +264,8 @@
> >> common_flags;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static inline void soc_camera_limit_side(unsigned int *start,
> >> - unsigned int *length, unsigned int start_min,
> >> - unsigned int length_min, unsigned int length_max)
> >> +static inline void soc_camera_limit_side(int *start, int *length,
> >> + int start_min, int length_min, int length_max)
> >> {
> >> if (*length < length_min)
> >> *length = length_min;
> >
> > I still do not believe this function will work equally well with signed
> > parameters, as it works with unsigned ones.
>
> I implemented some test cases to find out whether the
> soc_camera_limit_side() works correctly or not. My biggest problem is that I'm
> not sure what is the expected working of the soc_camera_limit_side() function.
Well, the expected behaviour is simple: the function treats all its
parameters as unsigned, and puts the former two input/output parameters
within the limits, provided by the latter three parameters. Well, taking
into account, that when comparing a signed and an unsigned integers, the
comparison is performed unsigned, I think, it should be ok to do what I
suggested in the last email: change prototype to
+static inline void soc_camera_limit_side(int *start, int *length,
+ unsigned int start_min, unsigned int length_min,
+ unsigned int length_max)
Maybe also provide a comment above the function explaining, why the first
two parameters are signed. And cast explicitly in sh_mobile_ceu_camera.c:
soc_camera_limit_side(&rect->left, &rect->width,
(unsigned int)cap.bounds.left, 2,
(unsigned int)cap.bounds.width);
soc_camera_limit_side(&rect->top, &rect->height,
(unsigned int)cap.bounds.top, 4,
(unsigned int)cap.bounds.height);
Could you check if this would make both sparse and the compiler happy?
Thanks
Guennadi
>
> Nevertheless I tried expect some values, you can probably verify whether my
> expectations are correct or not (see the test attached).
>
> The signed and unsigned version of the function works differently because
> the unsigned version cannot accept negative values. These values will be
> implicitly casted to an unsigned value which means that they will be interpreted
> as a big positive value.
>
> Here are the test results:
>
> Test Case 1: PASSED
> Test Case 2: PASSED
> Test Case 3: FAILED: start=50, length=8, start_unsigned=0, length_unsigned=1600
> Test Case 4: PASSED
> Test Case 5: PASSED
> Test Case 6: PASSED
> Test Case 7: PASSED
> Test Case 8: PASSED
>
> There is a difference in case 3, but which is the correct one?
>
> Regard,
>
> Márton Németh
>
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
@@ -326,7 +326,7 @@
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
- dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Frame %ux%u pixel\n", rect.width, rect.height);
+ dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Frame %dx%d pixel\n", rect.width, rect.height);
mt9v022->rect = rect;
@@ -555,15 +555,15 @@
return ret;
}
-static int rj54n1_sensor_scale(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, u32 *in_w, u32 *in_h,
- u32 *out_w, u32 *out_h);
+static int rj54n1_sensor_scale(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, s32 *in_w, s32 *in_h,
+ s32 *out_w, s32 *out_h);
static int rj54n1_s_crop(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_crop *a)
{
struct i2c_client *client = sd->priv;
struct rj54n1 *rj54n1 = to_rj54n1(client);
struct v4l2_rect *rect = &a->c;
- unsigned int dummy = 0, output_w, output_h,
+ int dummy = 0, output_w, output_h,
input_w = rect->width, input_h = rect->height;
int ret;
@@ -577,7 +577,7 @@
output_w = (input_w * 1024 + rj54n1->resize / 2) / rj54n1->resize;
output_h = (input_h * 1024 + rj54n1->resize / 2) / rj54n1->resize;
- dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Scaling for %ux%u : %u = %ux%u\n",
+ dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Scaling for %dx%d : %d = %dx%d\n",
input_w, input_h, rj54n1->resize, output_w, output_h);
ret = rj54n1_sensor_scale(sd, &input_w, &input_h, &output_w, &output_h);
@@ -638,12 +638,12 @@
* the output one, updates the window sizes and returns an error or the resize
* coefficient on success. Note: we only use the "Fixed Scaling" on this camera.
*/
-static int rj54n1_sensor_scale(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, u32 *in_w, u32 *in_h,
- u32 *out_w, u32 *out_h)
+static int rj54n1_sensor_scale(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, s32 *in_w, s32 *in_h,
+ s32 *out_w, s32 *out_h)
{
struct i2c_client *client = sd->priv;
struct rj54n1 *rj54n1 = to_rj54n1(client);
- unsigned int skip, resize, input_w = *in_w, input_h = *in_h,
+ int skip, resize, input_w = *in_w, input_h = *in_h,
output_w = *out_w, output_h = *out_h;
u16 inc_sel, wb_bit8, wb_left, wb_right, wb_top, wb_bottom;
unsigned int peak, peak_50, peak_60;
@@ -655,7 +655,7 @@
* case we have to either reduce the input window to equal or below
* 512x384 or the output window to equal or below 1/2 of the input.
*/
- if (output_w > max(512U, input_w / 2)) {
+ if (output_w > max(512, input_w / 2)) {
if (2 * output_w > RJ54N1_MAX_WIDTH) {
input_w = RJ54N1_MAX_WIDTH;
output_w = RJ54N1_MAX_WIDTH / 2;
@@ -663,11 +663,11 @@
input_w = output_w * 2;
}
- dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Adjusted output width: in %u, out %u\n",
+ dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Adjusted output width: in %d, out %d\n",
input_w, output_w);
}
- if (output_h > max(384U, input_h / 2)) {
+ if (output_h > max(384, input_h / 2)) {
if (2 * output_h > RJ54N1_MAX_HEIGHT) {
input_h = RJ54N1_MAX_HEIGHT;
output_h = RJ54N1_MAX_HEIGHT / 2;
@@ -675,7 +675,7 @@
input_h = output_h * 2;
}
- dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Adjusted output height: in %u, out %u\n",
+ dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Adjusted output height: in %d, out %d\n",
input_h, output_h);
}
@@ -749,7 +749,7 @@
* improve the image quality or stability for larger frames (see comment
* above), but I didn't check the framerate.
*/
- skip = min(resize / 1024, (unsigned)15);
+ skip = min(resize / 1024, 15);
inc_sel = 1 << skip;
@@ -819,7 +819,7 @@
*out_w = output_w;
*out_h = output_h;
- dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Scaled for %ux%u : %u = %ux%u, skip %u\n",
+ dev_dbg(&client->dev, "Scaled for %dx%d : %d = %dx%d, skip %d\n",
*in_w, *in_h, resize, output_w, output_h, skip);
return resize;
@@ -1017,7 +1017,7 @@
struct i2c_client *client = sd->priv;
struct rj54n1 *rj54n1 = to_rj54n1(client);
const struct rj54n1_datafmt *fmt;
- unsigned int output_w, output_h, max_w, max_h,
+ int output_w, output_h, max_w, max_h,
input_w = rj54n1->rect.width, input_h = rj54n1->rect.height;
int ret;
@@ -1041,13 +1041,13 @@
*/
if (!memcmp(rect, cam_rect, sizeof(*rect))) {
/* Even if camera S_CROP failed, but camera rectangle matches */
- dev_dbg(dev, "Camera S_CROP successful for %ux%u@%u:%u\n",
+ dev_dbg(dev, "Camera S_CROP successful for %dx%d@%d:%d\n",
rect->width, rect->height, rect->left, rect->top);
return 0;
}
/* Try to fix cropping, that camera hasn't managed to set */
- dev_geo(dev, "Fix camera S_CROP for %ux%u@%u:%u to %ux%u@%u:%u\n",
+ dev_geo(dev, "Fix camera S_CROP for %dx%d@%d:%d to %dx%d@%d:%d\n",
cam_rect->width, cam_rect->height,
cam_rect->left, cam_rect->top,
rect->width, rect->height, rect->left, rect->top);
@@ -1103,7 +1103,7 @@
v4l2_subdev_call(sd, video, s_crop, cam_crop);
ret = client_g_rect(sd, cam_rect);
- dev_geo(dev, "Camera S_CROP %d for %ux%u@%u:%u\n", ret,
+ dev_geo(dev, "Camera S_CROP %d for %dx%d@%d:%d\n", ret,
cam_rect->width, cam_rect->height,
cam_rect->left, cam_rect->top);
}
@@ -1117,7 +1117,7 @@
*cam_rect = cap.bounds;
v4l2_subdev_call(sd, video, s_crop, cam_crop);
ret = client_g_rect(sd, cam_rect);
- dev_geo(dev, "Camera S_CROP %d for max %ux%u@%u:%u\n", ret,
+ dev_geo(dev, "Camera S_CROP %d for max %dx%d@%d:%d\n", ret,
cam_rect->width, cam_rect->height,
cam_rect->left, cam_rect->top);
}
@@ -264,9 +264,8 @@
common_flags;
}
-static inline void soc_camera_limit_side(unsigned int *start,
- unsigned int *length, unsigned int start_min,
- unsigned int length_min, unsigned int length_max)
+static inline void soc_camera_limit_side(int *start, int *length,
+ int start_min, int length_min, int length_max)
{
if (*length < length_min)
*length = length_min;