Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong.
In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time.
Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from
alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used.
Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tomm.merciai@gmail.com>
---
drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c | 12 ++++--------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c
index 240bf991105e..01111a00902d 100644
--- a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c
+++ b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c
@@ -1171,12 +1171,10 @@ static int alvium_set_bayer_pattern(struct alvium_dev *alvium,
}
static int alvium_get_frame_interval(struct alvium_dev *alvium,
- u64 *dft_fr, u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr)
+ u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr)
{
int ret = 0;
- alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_RW,
- dft_fr, &ret);
alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MIN_R,
min_fr, &ret);
alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MAX_R,
@@ -1647,7 +1645,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
{
struct alvium_dev *alvium = sd_to_alvium(sd);
struct device *dev = &alvium->i2c_client->dev;
- u64 req_fr, dft_fr, min_fr, max_fr;
+ u64 req_fr, min_fr, max_fr;
struct v4l2_fract *interval;
int ret;
@@ -1657,7 +1655,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
if (fi->interval.denominator == 0)
return -EINVAL;
- ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &dft_fr, &min_fr, &max_fr);
+ ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &min_fr, &max_fr);
if (ret) {
dev_err(dev, "Fail to get frame interval\n");
return ret;
@@ -1670,9 +1668,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
req_fr = (u64)((fi->interval.denominator * USEC_PER_SEC) /
fi->interval.numerator);
-
- if (req_fr >= max_fr && req_fr <= min_fr)
- req_fr = dft_fr;
+ req_fr = clamp(req_fr, min_fr, max_fr);
interval = v4l2_subdev_state_get_interval(sd_state, 0);
--
2.34.1Hi Tommaso,
Thank you for the patch.
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote:
> Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong.
> In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time.
> Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from
> alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used.
The commit message should have explained why clamping is better than
picking a default value, as that's a functional change. If you propose
an updated commit message in a reply, I think Sakari can update the
patch when applying the series to his tree, there's no need for a v4.
> Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tomm.merciai@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> ---
> drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c | 12 ++++--------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c
> index 240bf991105e..01111a00902d 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c
> @@ -1171,12 +1171,10 @@ static int alvium_set_bayer_pattern(struct alvium_dev *alvium,
> }
>
> static int alvium_get_frame_interval(struct alvium_dev *alvium,
> - u64 *dft_fr, u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr)
> + u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> - alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_RW,
> - dft_fr, &ret);
> alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MIN_R,
> min_fr, &ret);
> alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MAX_R,
> @@ -1647,7 +1645,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> {
> struct alvium_dev *alvium = sd_to_alvium(sd);
> struct device *dev = &alvium->i2c_client->dev;
> - u64 req_fr, dft_fr, min_fr, max_fr;
> + u64 req_fr, min_fr, max_fr;
> struct v4l2_fract *interval;
> int ret;
>
> @@ -1657,7 +1655,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> if (fi->interval.denominator == 0)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &dft_fr, &min_fr, &max_fr);
> + ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &min_fr, &max_fr);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(dev, "Fail to get frame interval\n");
> return ret;
> @@ -1670,9 +1668,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>
> req_fr = (u64)((fi->interval.denominator * USEC_PER_SEC) /
> fi->interval.numerator);
> -
> - if (req_fr >= max_fr && req_fr <= min_fr)
> - req_fr = dft_fr;
> + req_fr = clamp(req_fr, min_fr, max_fr);
>
> interval = v4l2_subdev_state_get_interval(sd_state, 0);
>
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Hi Laurent,
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 03:02:36PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Tommaso,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote:
> > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong.
> > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time.
> > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from
> > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used.
>
> The commit message should have explained why clamping is better than
> picking a default value, as that's a functional change. If you propose
> an updated commit message in a reply, I think Sakari can update the
> patch when applying the series to his tree, there's no need for a v4.
What about:
Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong.
In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time.
Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from
alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used.
Clamp function make sure that if the setted value exceeds the limits is
replaced with min_fr/max_fr instead of setting the value readed back
from the hw.
What do you think?
Thanks & Regards,
Tommaso
>
> > Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tomm.merciai@gmail.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c | 12 ++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c
> > index 240bf991105e..01111a00902d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/alvium-csi2.c
> > @@ -1171,12 +1171,10 @@ static int alvium_set_bayer_pattern(struct alvium_dev *alvium,
> > }
> >
> > static int alvium_get_frame_interval(struct alvium_dev *alvium,
> > - u64 *dft_fr, u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr)
> > + u64 *min_fr, u64 *max_fr)
> > {
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > - alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_RW,
> > - dft_fr, &ret);
> > alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MIN_R,
> > min_fr, &ret);
> > alvium_read(alvium, REG_BCRM_ACQUISITION_FRAME_RATE_MAX_R,
> > @@ -1647,7 +1645,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > {
> > struct alvium_dev *alvium = sd_to_alvium(sd);
> > struct device *dev = &alvium->i2c_client->dev;
> > - u64 req_fr, dft_fr, min_fr, max_fr;
> > + u64 req_fr, min_fr, max_fr;
> > struct v4l2_fract *interval;
> > int ret;
> >
> > @@ -1657,7 +1655,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > if (fi->interval.denominator == 0)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &dft_fr, &min_fr, &max_fr);
> > + ret = alvium_get_frame_interval(alvium, &min_fr, &max_fr);
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Fail to get frame interval\n");
> > return ret;
> > @@ -1670,9 +1668,7 @@ static int alvium_s_frame_interval(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >
> > req_fr = (u64)((fi->interval.denominator * USEC_PER_SEC) /
> > fi->interval.numerator);
> > -
> > - if (req_fr >= max_fr && req_fr <= min_fr)
> > - req_fr = dft_fr;
> > + req_fr = clamp(req_fr, min_fr, max_fr);
> >
> > interval = v4l2_subdev_state_get_interval(sd_state, 0);
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
Hi Tommaso, On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > Hi Laurent, > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 03:02:36PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Tommaso, > > > > Thank you for the patch. > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > > > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > > > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > > > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > > > The commit message should have explained why clamping is better than > > picking a default value, as that's a functional change. If you propose > > an updated commit message in a reply, I think Sakari can update the > > patch when applying the series to his tree, there's no need for a v4. > > What about: > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > Clamp function make sure that if the setted value exceeds the limits is > replaced with min_fr/max_fr instead of setting the value readed back > from the hw. > > What do you think? I used this, hopefully it's ok: media: i2c: alvium: fix req_fr check in alvium_s_frame_interval() req_fr check in alvium_s_frame_interval() is incorrect. In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. Ensure the requested frame rate remains within the supported range between min_fr and max_fr by clamping it. Also remove the unused dft_fr argument of alvium_get_frame_interval(). -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus
Hi Sakari, Sorry for delay. On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:14:35AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Tommaso, > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > Hi Laurent, > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 03:02:36PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > Hi Tommaso, > > > > > > Thank you for the patch. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 01:40:23PM +0100, Tommaso Merciai wrote: > > > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > > > > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > > > > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > > > > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > > > > > The commit message should have explained why clamping is better than > > > picking a default value, as that's a functional change. If you propose > > > an updated commit message in a reply, I think Sakari can update the > > > patch when applying the series to his tree, there's no need for a v4. > > > > What about: > > > > Actually req_fr check into alvium_s_frame_interval() is wrong. > > In particular req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. > > Fix this using clamp and remove dft_fr parameter from > > alvium_get_frame_interval() not more used. > > > > Clamp function make sure that if the setted value exceeds the limits is > > replaced with min_fr/max_fr instead of setting the value readed back > > from the hw. > > > > What do you think? > > I used this, hopefully it's ok: > > media: i2c: alvium: fix req_fr check in alvium_s_frame_interval() > > req_fr check in alvium_s_frame_interval() is incorrect. In particular > req_fr can't be >=max and <= min at the same time. Ensure the requested > frame rate remains within the supported range between min_fr and max_fr by > clamping it. > > Also remove the unused dft_fr argument of alvium_get_frame_interval(). Looks good to me! :) Thanks for this. Regards, Tommaso > > -- > Kind regards, > > Sakari Ailus
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.