Hi Hans, thank you for the review comments.
On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 19:47 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 22/05/18 18:29, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > Limit frame sizes to the [1, UINT_MAX-1] interval, media bus formats to > > the available list of formats, and initialize pad and try formats. > > > > Reported-by: Rui Miguel Silva <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/media/platform/video-mux.c | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/video-mux.c > > b/drivers/media/platform/video-mux.c > > index 1fb887293337..ade1dae706aa 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/video-mux.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/video-mux.c > > @@ -180,6 +180,87 @@ static int video_mux_set_format(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, > > if (!source_mbusformat) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > + /* No size limitations except V4L2 compliance requirements */ > > + v4l_bound_align_image(&sdformat->format.width, 1, UINT_MAX - 1, 0, > > + &sdformat->format.height, 1, UINT_MAX - 1, 0, 0); > > This is a bit dubious. I would pick more realistic min/max values like 16 and Why 16? A grayscale or RGB sensor could crop down to 1x1, see mt9v032 for example. > 65536. UINT_MAX - 1 will overflow whenever code increments/multiplies it for > some > reason, which can cause all sorts of weird issues. Ok. Should v4l2-compliance check for > 65536 then, instead of (or additionally to) UINT_MAX? > > + > > + /* All formats except LVDS and vendor specific formats are acceptable */ > > + switch (sdformat->format.code) { > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB444_1X12: > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_RGB444_2X8_PADHI_BE: [...] > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_JPEG_1X8: > > + case MEDIA_BUS_FMT_AHSV8888_1X32: > > + break; > > + default: > > + sdformat->format.code = MEDIA_BUS_FMT_Y8_1X8; > > Add a break here. Will do. > > + } > > + if (sdformat->format.field == V4L2_FIELD_ANY) > > + sdformat->format.field = V4L2_FIELD_NONE; > > + > > mutex_lock(&vmux->lock); > > > > /* Source pad mirrors active sink pad, no limitations on sink pads */ > > @@ -197,11 +278,33 @@ static int video_mux_set_format(struct v4l2_subdev > > *sd, > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static int video_mux_open(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, struct v4l2_subdev_fh > > *fh) > > +{ > > + struct video_mux *vmux = v4l2_subdev_to_video_mux(sd); > > + struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt *mbusformat; > > + int i; > > + > > + mutex_lock(&vmux->lock); > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < sd->entity.num_pads; i++) { > > + mbusformat = v4l2_subdev_get_try_format(sd, fh->pad, i); > > + *mbusformat = vmux->format_mbus[i]; > > + } > > + > > + mutex_unlock(&vmux->lock); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > This isn't the right approach. Instead implement the init_cfg pad op. How embarrassing, yes. > > + > > static const struct v4l2_subdev_pad_ops video_mux_pad_ops = { > > .get_fmt = video_mux_get_format, > > .set_fmt = video_mux_set_format, > > }; > > > > +static const struct v4l2_subdev_internal_ops video_mux_internal_ops = { > > + .open = video_mux_open, > > +}; > > So this can be dropped. Ok, thanks! regards Philipp
