linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 07/12] media: i2c: imx214: Add vblank and hblank controls

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Z2ElblaV8OBh9ET8@kekkonen.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 07:17:02 +0000
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: André Apitzsch <git@...tzsch.eu>
Cc: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ribalda@...nel.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
	~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>,
	Vincent Knecht <vincent.knecht@...loo.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/12] media: i2c: imx214: Add vblank and hblank
 controls

Hi André,

On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 11:35:41PM +0100, André Apitzsch wrote:
> > > @@ -626,9 +637,36 @@ static int imx214_set_format(struct
> > > v4l2_subdev *sd,
> > >         __crop->width = mode->width;
> > >         __crop->height = mode->height;
> > > 
> > > -       if (format->which == V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_ACTIVE)
> > > +       if (format->which == V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_ACTIVE) {
> > > +               int exposure_max;
> > > +               int exposure_def;
> > > +               int hblank;
> > > +
> > >                 imx214->cur_mode = mode;
> > > 
> > > +               /* Update FPS limits */
> > nit: Update blank limits
> > > +               __v4l2_ctrl_modify_range(imx214->vblank,
> > > IMX214_VBLANK_MIN,
> > > +                                        IMX214_VTS_MAX - mode-
> > > >height, 2,
> > > +                                        mode->vts_def - mode-
> > > >height);
> > 
> > Is the handler->lock held when we call this function?
> 
> I'm not sure how to test this.

I'd say "yes" because the first patch sets the control handler lock to the
sub-device state lock.

-- 
Regards,

Sakari Ailus