RE: [PATCH - v1 4/6] V4L - vpfe_capture bug fix and enhancements

2009-12-17 Thread Nori, Sekhar
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 13:11:57, Hans Verkuil wrote: On Wednesday 16 December 2009 00:37:52 Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote: Hans, I remember there was a comment against an earlier patch that asks for combining such statements since it makes the function appear as big. Not sure who had

RE: [PATCH - v1 4/6] V4L - vpfe_capture bug fix and enhancements

2009-12-16 Thread Karicheri, Muralidharan
hans, Yes, isif_config_bclamp() set values in the register. Huh? That does not explain why apparently bc-horz.win_h_sz_calc can be larger than ISIF_HORZ_BC_WIN_H_SIZE_MASK. because the values come from the user and since we can't use the enum for the types, I have to make sure the value is

Re: [PATCH - v1 4/6] V4L - vpfe_capture bug fix and enhancements

2009-12-15 Thread Hans Verkuil
On Thursday 10 December 2009 18:00:29 m-kariche...@ti.com wrote: From: Muralidharan Karicheri m-kariche...@ti.com Added a experimental IOCTL, to read the CCDC parameters. Default handler was not getting the original pointer from the core. So a wrapper function added to handle the default

Re: [PATCH - v1 4/6] V4L - vpfe_capture bug fix and enhancements

2009-12-15 Thread Hans Verkuil
Note that the other patches from this series are fine as far as I am concerned. One general note: I always have difficulties with constructions like this: + val = (bc-horz.win_count_calc + ISIF_HORZ_BC_WIN_COUNT_MASK) | +

RE: [PATCH - v1 4/6] V4L - vpfe_capture bug fix and enhancements

2009-12-15 Thread Karicheri, Muralidharan
Hans, I remember there was a comment against an earlier patch that asks for combining such statements since it makes the function appear as big. Not sure who had made that comment. That is the reason you find code like this in this patch. It was initially done with multiple OR statements to

Re: [PATCH - v1 4/6] V4L - vpfe_capture bug fix and enhancements

2009-12-15 Thread Hans Verkuil
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 00:37:52 Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote: Hans, I remember there was a comment against an earlier patch that asks for combining such statements since it makes the function appear as big. Not sure who had made that comment. That is the reason you find code like