Re: [PATCH 9/9] mt9t112: initialize left and top

Hans Verkuil
2015-05-04T07:31:31Z

On 05/03/2015 11:02 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On Sun, 3 May 2015, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>
>> From: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>
>>
>> The left and top variables were uninitialized, leading to unexpected
>> results.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9t112.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9t112.c b/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9t112.c
>> index de10a76..02190d6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9t112.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/soc_camera/mt9t112.c
>> @@ -952,7 +952,8 @@ static int mt9t112_set_fmt(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>> struct v4l2_mbus_framefmt *mf = &format->format;
>> struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
>> struct mt9t112_priv *priv = to_mt9t112(client);
>> - unsigned int top, left;
>> + unsigned int top = priv->frame.top;
>> + unsigned int left = priv->frame.left;
>
> I don't think this is needed. We don't care about left and top in
> mt9t112_set_fmt().

On further analysis you are correct, it will work with random left/top
values. But I think it is 1) very unexpected and 2) bad form to leave it
with random values.

I prefer to keep this patch, unless you disagree.

Regards,

Hans

>
> How about my comment about a duplicated call to mt9t112_set_params()? Can
> we have it fixed too?
>
> Thanks
> Guennadi
>
>> int i;
>>
>> if (format->pad)
>> --
>> 2.1.4
>>