Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 5/5] media: Add registration helpers for V4L2 flash sub-devices

[Jacek Anaszewski]

On 05/06/2014 11:10 AM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Jacek,
>
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 08:44:41AM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> > Hi Sakari,
> >
> > On 05/02/2014 01:06 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > +static inline enum led_brightness v4l2_flash_intensity_to_led_brightness(
> > > > > > > > +					struct led_ctrl *config,
> > > > > > > > +					u32 intensity)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fits on a single line.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > +	return intensity / config->step;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shouldn't you first decrement the minimum before the division?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brightness level 0 means that led is off. Let's consider following case:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > intensity - 15625
> > > > > > config->step - 15625
> > > > > > intensity / config->step = 1 (the lowest possible current level)
> > > > >
> > > > > In V4L2 controls the minimum is not off, and zero might not be a possible
> > > > > value since minimum isn't divisible by step.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder how to best take that into account.
> > > >
> > > > I've assumed that in MODE_TORCH a led is always on. Switching
> > > > the mode to MODE_FLASH or MODE_OFF turns the led off.
> > > > This way we avoid the problem with converting 0 uA value to
> > > > led_brightness, as available torch brightness levels start from
> > > > the minimum current level value and turning the led off is
> > > > accomplished on transition to MODE_OFF or MODE_FLASH, by
> > > > calling brightness_set op with led_brightness = 0.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if we understood the issue the same way. My concern was that if
> > > the intensity isn't a multiple of step (but intensity - min is), the above
> > > formula won't return a valid result (unless I miss something).
> >
> > Please note that v4l2_flash_intensity_to_led_brightness is called only
> > from s_ctrl callback, and thus it expects to get the intensity aligned
> > to the step value, so it will always be a multiple of step.
> > Is it possible that s_ctrl callback would be passed a non-aligned
> > control value?
>
> In a nutshell: value - min is aligned but value is not. Please see
> validate_new() in drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c .

Still, to my mind, value is aligned.

Below I execute the calculation steps one by one
according to the V4L2_CTRL_TYPE_INTEGER case in the
validate_new function:

c->value = 35000

val = c->value + step / 2;       // 35000 + 15625 / 2 = 42812
val = clamp(val, min, max);      // val = 42812
offset = val - min;              // 42812 - 15625 = 27187
offset = step * (offset / step); // 15625 * (27187 / 15625) = 15625
c->value = min + offset;         // 15625 + 15625 = 31250

Value is aligned to the nearest step.

Please spot any discrepancies in my way of thinking if there
are any :)

Regards,
Jacek Anaszewski


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/