Re: [PATCH] smiapp: re-use clamp_t instead of min(..., max(...))

Laurent Pinchart
2013-08-08T22:42:19Z

Hi Sakari,

On Wednesday 24 July 2013 18:55:38 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 06:49:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> > []
> >
> > >> + max_m = clamp_t(u32, max_m,
> > >> sensor->limits[SMIAPP_LIMIT_SCALER_M_MIN], +
> > >> sensor->limits[SMIAPP_LIMIT_SCALER_M_MAX]);
> > >
> > > Do you need clamp_t()? Wouldn't plain clamp() do?
> >
> > The *_t variants are preferred due to they are faster (no type checking).
> >
> > > I can change it if you're ok with that.
> >
> > I don't know why you may choose clamp instead of clamp_t here. Are you
> > going to change variable types?
>
> Probably not. But clamp() would serve as a sanity check vs. clamp_t() which
> just does the thing. I'd prefer clamp() --- the compiler will not spend much
> time on it anyway.

Should I take this patch in my tree ? If so, could you please repost it with
clamp() instead of clamp_t(), and your SoB or Acked-by ?

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart