linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] media: i2c: imx290: Add support to enumerate all frame sizes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 15 Dec 2019 23:18:34 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
Cc:     mchehab@...nel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, c.barrett@...mos.com,
        a.brela@...mos.com, peter.griffin@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] media: i2c: imx290: Add support to enumerate all
 frame sizes

Hi Sakari,

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 10:56:04AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:35:40AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > Add support to enumerate all frame sizes supported by IMX290. This is
> > required for using with userspace tools such as libcamera.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/media/i2c/imx290.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/imx290.c b/drivers/media/i2c/imx290.c
> > index d5bb3a59ac46..f26c4a0ee0a0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/imx290.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/imx290.c
> > @@ -468,6 +468,25 @@ static int imx290_enum_mbus_code(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int imx290_enum_frame_size(struct v4l2_subdev *subdev,
> > +				  struct v4l2_subdev_pad_config *cfg,
> > +				  struct v4l2_subdev_frame_size_enum *fse)
> > +{
> > +	if ((fse->code != imx290_formats[0].code) &&
> > +	    (fse->code != imx290_formats[1].code))
> 
> Please use a loop over imx290_formats instead.
> 

May I know why? What benefit does it provide over current method?

Thanks,
Mani

> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (fse->index >= ARRAY_SIZE(imx290_modes))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	fse->min_width = imx290_modes[fse->index].width;
> > +	fse->max_width = imx290_modes[fse->index].width;
> > +	fse->min_height = imx290_modes[fse->index].height;
> > +	fse->max_height = imx290_modes[fse->index].height;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int imx290_get_fmt(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
> >  			  struct v4l2_subdev_pad_config *cfg,
> >  			  struct v4l2_subdev_format *fmt)
> > @@ -820,6 +839,7 @@ static const struct v4l2_subdev_video_ops imx290_video_ops = {
> >  static const struct v4l2_subdev_pad_ops imx290_pad_ops = {
> >  	.init_cfg = imx290_entity_init_cfg,
> >  	.enum_mbus_code = imx290_enum_mbus_code,
> > +	.enum_frame_size = imx290_enum_frame_size,
> >  	.get_fmt = imx290_get_fmt,
> >  	.set_fmt = imx290_set_fmt,
> >  };
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Sakari Ailus