linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 10/10] media: i2c: ov9282: dynamic flash

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]

Message-ID: <aLfy4MOOgHu2s1m-@kekkonen.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 10:48:48 +0300
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@...ux.dev>
Cc: Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 10/10] media: i2c: ov9282: dynamic flash_duration
 maximum

Hi Richard,

On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 09:13:35AM +0200, Richard Leitner wrote:
> > > @@ -1491,8 +1510,11 @@ static int ov9282_init_controls(struct ov9282 *ov9282)
> > >  	/* Flash/Strobe controls */
> > >  	v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_HW_STROBE_SIGNAL, 0, 1, 1, 0);
> > >  
> > > -	v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION,
> > > -			  0, 13900, 1, 8);
> > > +	exposure_us = ov9282_exposure_to_us(ov9282, OV9282_EXPOSURE_DEFAULT);
> > > +	ov9282->flash_duration = v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr,
> > > +						   &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION,
> > > +						   0, exposure_us,
> > > +						   1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT);
> > 
> > Wrap this differently, please, e.g. after '='.
> 
> This is wrapped the same way as all other v4l2_ctrl_new_X() calls in
> ov9282_init_controls(). Therefore I've chosen to do it this way here
> too.
> 
> So if I'm going to change this one, IMHO all others should be changed
> too (exp_ctrl, again_ctrl, vblank_ctrl, pixel_rate, link_freq_ctrl,
> hblank_ctrl). Is this intended?
> 
> If so I'm wondering if this would be a suiteable approach?
> 
> ov9282->flash_duration =
> 	v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr,
> 			   &ov9282_ctrl_ops, V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION,
> 			   0, exposure_us,
> 			   1, OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT);
> 
> It is fine for checkpatch, but introduces a newline for every ctrl and
> tbh I'm not sure if it improves readability?

I don't think it's worse at least. You can also rewrap the rest of the
lines:

	ov9282->flash_duration =
		v4l2_ctrl_new_std(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops,
				  V4L2_CID_FLASH_DURATION, 0, exposure_us, 1,
				  OV9282_FLASH_DURATION_DEFAULT);

> > >  	ctrl = v4l2_ctrl_new_std_menu(ctrl_hdlr, &ov9282_ctrl_ops,
> > >  				      V4L2_CID_FLASH_STROBE_SOURCE,
> > > 
> > 
> > To me the set looks good but I wouldn't mind about having a bit more
> > review.
> 
> Thanks for your continuous feedback! It improved the series a lot!
> 
> Is there anyhthing I can assists/help?

I asked Laurent if he could check this out, it'd be nice to get these to
6.18.

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus