Em Mon, 9 Apr 2018 16:20:10 +0200
Hans Verkuil <hverk...@xs4all.nl> escreveu:
> From: Hans Verkuil <hans.verk...@cisco.com>
>
> The next patch needs the reference to a control instead of the
> control itself, so change struct v4l2_ctrl_helper accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verk...@cisco.com>
> ---
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c
> b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c
> index 3c1b00baa8d0..da4cc1485dc4 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ctrls.c
> @@ -37,8 +37,8 @@
> struct v4l2_ctrl_helper {
> /* Pointer to the control reference of the master control */
> struct v4l2_ctrl_ref *mref;
> - /* The control corresponding to the v4l2_ext_control ID field. */
> - struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl;
Why are you removing it in this patch?
I mean: if this is something that it is not used, it should be
removed on a separate one. Otherwise, please explain it at the
patch description.
> + /* The control ref corresponding to the v4l2_ext_control ID field. */
> + struct v4l2_ctrl_ref *ref;
> /* v4l2_ext_control index of the next control belonging to the
> same cluster, or 0 if there isn't any. */
> u32 next;
> @@ -2887,6 +2887,7 @@ static int prepare_ext_ctrls(struct v4l2_ctrl_handler
> *hdl,
> ref = find_ref_lock(hdl, id);
> if (ref == NULL)
> return -EINVAL;
> + h->ref = ref;
> ctrl = ref->ctrl;
> if (ctrl->flags & V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_DISABLED)
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -2909,7 +2910,6 @@ static int prepare_ext_ctrls(struct v4l2_ctrl_handler
> *hdl,
> }
> /* Store the ref to the master control of the cluster */
> h->mref = ref;
> - h->ctrl = ctrl;
> /* Initially set next to 0, meaning that there is no other
> control in this helper array belonging to the same
> cluster */
> @@ -2994,7 +2994,7 @@ int v4l2_g_ext_ctrls(struct v4l2_ctrl_handler *hdl,
> struct v4l2_ext_controls *cs
> cs->error_idx = cs->count;
>
> for (i = 0; !ret && i < cs->count; i++)
> - if (helpers[i].ctrl->flags & V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_WRITE_ONLY)
> + if (helpers[i].ref->ctrl->flags & V4L2_CTRL_FLAG_WRITE_ONLY)
Shouldn't it be checking if ref is not NULL?
> ret = -EACCES;
>
> for (i = 0; !ret && i < cs->count; i++) {
> @@ -3029,7 +3029,7 @@ int v4l2_g_ext_ctrls(struct v4l2_ctrl_handler *hdl,
> struct v4l2_ext_controls *cs
>
> do {
> ret = ctrl_to_user(cs->controls + idx,
> - helpers[idx].ctrl);
> + helpers[idx].ref->ctrl);
> idx = helpers[idx].next;
> } while (!ret && idx);
> }
> @@ -3168,7 +3168,7 @@ static int validate_ctrls(struct v4l2_ext_controls *cs,
>
> cs->error_idx = cs->count;
> for (i = 0; i < cs->count; i++) {
> - struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl = helpers[i].ctrl;
> + struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl = helpers[i].ref->ctrl;
> union v4l2_ctrl_ptr p_new;
>
> cs->error_idx = i;
> @@ -3280,7 +3280,7 @@ static int try_set_ext_ctrls(struct v4l2_fh *fh, struct
> v4l2_ctrl_handler *hdl,
> do {
> /* Check if the auto control is part of the
> list, and remember the new value. */
> - if (helpers[tmp_idx].ctrl == master)
> + if (helpers[tmp_idx].ref->ctrl == master)
> new_auto_val =
> cs->controls[tmp_idx].value;
> tmp_idx = helpers[tmp_idx].next;
> } while (tmp_idx);
> @@ -3293,7 +3293,7 @@ static int try_set_ext_ctrls(struct v4l2_fh *fh, struct
> v4l2_ctrl_handler *hdl,
> /* Copy the new caller-supplied control values.
> user_to_new() sets 'is_new' to 1. */
> do {
> - struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl = helpers[idx].ctrl;
> + struct v4l2_ctrl *ctrl = helpers[idx].ref->ctrl;
>
> ret = user_to_new(cs->controls + idx, ctrl);
> if (!ret && ctrl->is_ptr)
> @@ -3309,7 +3309,7 @@ static int try_set_ext_ctrls(struct v4l2_fh *fh, struct
> v4l2_ctrl_handler *hdl,
> idx = i;
> do {
> ret = new_to_user(cs->controls + idx,
> - helpers[idx].ctrl);
> + helpers[idx].ref->ctrl);
> idx = helpers[idx].next;
> } while (!ret && idx);
> }
Thanks,
Mauro
