[PATCH] Staging: go7007: detector features - add new tuning option
Dan Carpenter
dan.carpenter at oracle.com
Wed Apr 18 08:49:36 UTC 2012
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:50:15AM +0400, volokh wrote:
> >From a600b33c0824bf1b5031f820f8afaefa9e51dc16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Volokh Konstantin <my84 at bk.ru>
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:39:15 +0400
> Subject: [PATCH] Staging: go7007: detector features - add new tuning option
> for card( V4L2_MPEG_VIDEO_ENCODING_H263
> ,V4L2_CID_MPEG_VIDEO_B_FRAMES) - add
> framesizes&frameintervals control - tested&realize motion
> detector control( GO7007IOC_REGION_NUMBER
> ,GO7007IOC_PIXEL_THRESOLD ,GO7007IOC_MOTION_THRESOLD
> ,GO7007IOC_TRIGGER ,GO7007IOC_REGION_CONTROL
> ,GO7007IOC_CLIP_LEFT ,GO7007IOC_CLIP_TOP
> ,GO7007IOC_CLIP_WIDTH ,GO7007IOC_CLIP_HEIGHT)
>
> Tested with Angelo PCI-MPG24(Adlink) with go7007&tw2804 onboard
>
> With Utility script for conversation to 'c' style based on checkpatch.pl
>
Something went desperately wrong with your style script... :(
This patch needs to be broken up into multiple patches. For example
one patch could remove the #ifdefed out dead code. Pull all the
unrelated cleanups out into their own patches.
> @@ -159,6 +152,8 @@ static u32 get_frame_type_flag(struct go7007_buffer *gobuf, int format)
> default:
> return 0;
> }
> + default:
> + break;
Use 8 space tabs.
> }
>
> return 0;
> @@ -171,7 +166,7 @@ static int set_capture_size(struct go7007 *go, struct v4l2_format *fmt, int try)
>
> if (fmt != NULL && fmt->fmt.pix.pixelformat != V4L2_PIX_FMT_MJPEG &&
> fmt->fmt.pix.pixelformat != V4L2_PIX_FMT_MPEG &&
> - fmt->fmt.pix.pixelformat != V4L2_PIX_FMT_MPEG4)
> + fmt->fmt.pix.pixelformat != V4L2_PIX_FMT_H263)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> switch (go->standard) {
> @@ -303,11 +298,10 @@ static int set_capture_size(struct go7007 *go, struct v4l2_format *fmt, int try)
> go->gop_header_enable = 1;
> go->dvd_mode = 0;
> break;
> - /* Backwards compatibility only! */
> - case V4L2_PIX_FMT_MPEG4:
> - if (go->format == GO7007_FORMAT_MPEG4)
> + case V4L2_PIX_FMT_H263:
> + if (go->format == GO7007_FORMAT_H263)
> break;
> - go->format = GO7007_FORMAT_MPEG4;
> + go->format = GO7007_FORMAT_H263;
> go->pali = 0xf5;
> go->aspect_ratio = GO7007_RATIO_1_1;
> go->gop_size = go->sensor_framerate / 1000;
> @@ -334,112 +328,388 @@ static int set_capture_size(struct go7007 *go, struct v4l2_format *fmt, int try)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -#if 0
> -static int clip_to_modet_map(struct go7007 *go, int region,
> - struct v4l2_clip *clip_list)
> +static int md_g_ctrl(struct v4l2_control *ctrl, struct go7007 *go)
> {
> - struct v4l2_clip clip, *clip_ptr;
> - int x, y, mbnum;
> -
> - /* Check if coordinates are OK and if any macroblocks are already
> - * used by other regions (besides 0) */
> - clip_ptr = clip_list;
> - while (clip_ptr) {
> - if (copy_from_user(&clip, clip_ptr, sizeof(clip)))
> - return -EFAULT;
> - if (clip.c.left < 0 || (clip.c.left & 0xF) ||
> - clip.c.width <= 0 || (clip.c.width & 0xF))
> - return -EINVAL;
> - if (clip.c.left + clip.c.width > go->width)
> - return -EINVAL;
> - if (clip.c.top < 0 || (clip.c.top & 0xF) ||
> - clip.c.height <= 0 || (clip.c.height & 0xF))
> - return -EINVAL;
> - if (clip.c.top + clip.c.height > go->height)
> - return -EINVAL;
> - for (y = 0; y < clip.c.height; y += 16)
> - for (x = 0; x < clip.c.width; x += 16) {
> - mbnum = (go->width >> 4) *
> - ((clip.c.top + y) >> 4) +
> - ((clip.c.left + x) >> 4);
> - if (go->modet_map[mbnum] != 0 &&
> - go->modet_map[mbnum] != region)
> - return -EBUSY;
> - }
> - clip_ptr = clip.next;
> + switch (ctrl->id) {
> + case GO7007IOC_REGION_NUMBER:
> + ctrl->value = go->fCurrentRegion;
> + break;
> + case GO7007IOC_PIXEL_THRESOLD:
> + ctrl->value = (go->modet[go->fCurrentRegion].pixel_threshold<<1)+1;
> + break;
> + case GO7007IOC_MOTION_THRESOLD:
> + ctrl->value = (go->modet[go->fCurrentRegion].motion_threshold<<1)+1;
> + break;
> + case GO7007IOC_TRIGGER:
> + ctrl->value = (go->modet[go->fCurrentRegion].mb_threshold<<1)+1;
> + break;
> + case GO7007IOC_CLIP_LEFT:
> + ctrl->value = go->fClipRegion.left;
> + break;
> + case GO7007IOC_CLIP_TOP:
> + ctrl->value = go->fClipRegion.top;
> + break;
> + case GO7007IOC_CLIP_WIDTH:
> + ctrl->value = go->fClipRegion.width;
> + break;
> + case GO7007IOC_CLIP_HEIGHT:
> + ctrl->value = go->fClipRegion.height;
> + break;
> + case GO7007IOC_REGION_CONTROL:
> + default:
> + return -EINVAL;
Indenting on switch statements should look like this:
switch (ctrl->id) {
case GO7007IOC_REGION_NUMBER:
ctrl->value = go->fCurrentRegion;
break;
case GO7007IOC_PIXEL_THRESOLD:
etc.
> }
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> - /* Clear old region macroblocks */
> - for (mbnum = 0; mbnum < 1624; ++mbnum)
> - if (go->modet_map[mbnum] == region)
> +static void ClearModetMap(struct go7007 *go, char Region)
The original code used "region" and that was better than "Region".
Anyway, don't do unrelated renaming because it messes up the patch.
> +{
> + /* Clear old region macroblocks */
> + int mbnum;
Put a blank line here.
> + for (mbnum = 0; mbnum < sizeof(go->modet_map); ++mbnum)
> + if (go->modet_map[mbnum] == Region)
> go->modet_map[mbnum] = 0;
> +}
>
> - /* Claim macroblocks in this list */
> - clip_ptr = clip_list;
> - while (clip_ptr) {
> - if (copy_from_user(&clip, clip_ptr, sizeof(clip)))
> - return -EFAULT;
> - for (y = 0; y < clip.c.height; y += 16)
> - for (x = 0; x < clip.c.width; x += 16) {
> - mbnum = (go->width >> 4) *
> - ((clip.c.top + y) >> 4) +
> - ((clip.c.left + x) >> 4);
> - go->modet_map[mbnum] = region;
> - }
> - clip_ptr = clip.next;
> +static int RectToModetMap(
> + struct go7007 *go,
> + char Region,
> + struct v4l2_rect *Rect,
> + int Delete)
> +{
> + register int x, y, mbnum;
> + /* Check if coordinates are OK and if any macroblocks are already
> + * used by other regions (besides 0) */
> +/* if(Rect)*/
> + if (
> + Rect->left < 0 || (
> + Rect->left & 0xF) || Rect->width <= 0 || (
> + Rect->width & 0xF))
> + return -EINVAL;
I'm not sure what went wrong here with indenting. You used a tool
to do this automatically? Can you redo it, it's not worth reviewing
as is.
So basically this was not a proper review at all, and I understand
that. Please break it up into small patch, fix the style issues,
and we'll review it properly next time.
regards,
dan carpenter
More information about the devel
mailing list