[PATCH v9 7/7] media: nuvoton: Add driver for NPCM video capture and encode engine
Kun-Fa Lin
milkfafa at gmail.com
Thu Dec 22 13:23:32 AEDT 2022
Hi Andrzej,
Thanks for the review.
> > +static void npcm_video_ece_set_fb_addr(struct npcm_video *video, u32 buffer)
>
> static inline void?
>
> > +static void npcm_video_ece_set_enc_dba(struct npcm_video *video, u32 addr)
>
> ditto
> > +static void npcm_video_ece_clear_rect_offset(struct npcm_video *video)
>
> ditto
> > +static int npcm_video_ece_init(struct npcm_video *video)
>
> static inline int? But...
>
> > +{
> > + npcm_video_ece_ip_reset(video);
> > + npcm_video_ece_ctrl_reset(video);
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> ...the return value is not inspected by the only caller anyway, so why not
>
> static inline void?
OK, I'll declare these functions as static inline void.
> > +static int npcm_video_ece_stop(struct npcm_video *video)
> > +{
> > + struct regmap *ece = video->ece.regmap;
> > +
> > + regmap_update_bits(ece, ECE_DDA_CTRL, ECE_DDA_CTRL_ECEEN, 0);
> > + regmap_update_bits(ece, ECE_DDA_CTRL, ECE_DDA_CTRL_INTEN, 0);
> > + regmap_update_bits(ece, ECE_HEX_CTRL, ECE_HEX_CTRL_ENCDIS,
> > + ECE_HEX_CTRL_ENCDIS);
> > + npcm_video_ece_clear_rect_offset(video);
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> Nobody inspects this return value. Either void, or check the return value
> at call site and handle a non-zero failure.
OK, will change to void.
> > +static unsigned int npcm_video_get_rect_count(struct npcm_video *video)
> > +{
> > + struct list_head *head, *pos, *nx;
> > + struct rect_list *tmp;
> > + unsigned int count;
>
> unsigned int count = 0;
>
> otherwise if the below condition is not met, ...
> > +
> > + if (video->list && video->rect) {
> > + count = video->rect[video->vb_index];
> > + head = &video->list[video->vb_index];
> > +
> > + list_for_each_safe(pos, nx, head) {
> > + tmp = list_entry(pos, struct rect_list, list);
> > + list_del(&tmp->list);
> > + kfree(tmp);
> > + }
>
> why does a function whose name implies merely getting a number actually
> remove all elements from some list? count equals video->rect[video->vb_index];
> and everthing else looks like a(n indented?) side effect. This should be
> somehow commented in the code.
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + return count;
>
> ... an undefined number is returned
>
> Which makes me wonder if the compiler is not warning about using a possibly
> uninitialized value.
You are right, this is not the right place to remove the rect_list.
It makes more sense to remove the list right after the associated
video buffer gets dequeued.
I'll do that change.
> > +static int npcm_video_capres(struct npcm_video *video, u32 hor_res,
> > + u32 vert_res)
> > +{
> > + struct regmap *vcd = video->vcd_regmap;
> > + u32 res, cap_res;
> > +
> > + if (hor_res > MAX_WIDTH || vert_res > MAX_HEIGHT)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + res = FIELD_PREP(VCD_CAP_RES_VERT_RES, vert_res) |
> > + FIELD_PREP(VCD_CAP_RES_HOR_RES, hor_res);
> > +
> > + regmap_write(vcd, VCD_CAP_RES, res);
> > + regmap_read(vcd, VCD_CAP_RES, &cap_res);
> > +
> > + if (cap_res != res)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> The return value is not handled by the caller
> > +static int npcm_video_gfx_reset(struct npcm_video *video)
> > +{
> > + struct regmap *gcr = video->gcr_regmap;
> > +
> > + regmap_update_bits(gcr, INTCR2, INTCR2_GIRST2, INTCR2_GIRST2);
> > +
> > + npcm_video_vcd_state_machine_reset(video);
> > +
> > + regmap_update_bits(gcr, INTCR2, INTCR2_GIRST2, 0);
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> Never inspected by callers
> > +static int npcm_video_command(struct npcm_video *video, u32 value)
> > +{
> > + struct regmap *vcd = video->vcd_regmap;
> > + u32 cmd;
> > +
> > + regmap_write(vcd, VCD_STAT, VCD_STAT_CLEAR);
> > +
> > + regmap_read(vcd, VCD_CMD, &cmd);
> > + cmd |= FIELD_PREP(VCD_CMD_OPERATION, value);
> > +
> > + regmap_write(vcd, VCD_CMD, cmd);
> > + regmap_update_bits(vcd, VCD_CMD, VCD_CMD_GO, VCD_CMD_GO);
> > + video->op_cmd = value;
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> Never inspected by caller
> > +static int npcm_video_start_frame(struct npcm_video *video)
> > +{
>
> One of the callers ignores the return value, but not the other. Why?
These problems will be addressed in the next patch. Thank you.
Regards,
Marvin
More information about the openbmc
mailing list