On 05/18/2015 10:06 AM, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Michal Kubecek <mkube...@suse.cz> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 07:18:42PM +0200, Alex Dowad wrote:
>>> This fixes a checkpatch style error in vpfe_buffer_queue_setup.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Dowad <alexinbeij...@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c
>>> b/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c
>>> index 06d48d5..04a687c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c
>>> @@ -1095,7 +1095,7 @@ vpfe_buffer_queue_setup(struct vb2_queue *vq, const
>>> struct v4l2_format *fmt,
>>> size = video->fmt.fmt.pix.sizeimage;
>>>
>>> if (vpfe_dev->video_limit) {
>>> - while (size * *nbuffers > vpfe_dev->video_limit)
>>> + while (size * (*nbuffers) > vpfe_dev->video_limit)
>>> (*nbuffers)--;
>>> }
>>> if (pipe->state == VPFE_PIPELINE_STREAM_CONTINUOUS) {
>>
>> Style issue aside, is there a reason not to use
>>
>> if (size * *nbuffers > vpfe_dev->video_limit)
>> *nbuffers = vpfe_dev->video_limit / size;
>>
>> instead?
>>
> I would prefer this.
As far as I can see video_limit is never set at all, so this code (and the
video_limit
field) can just be removed.
I think this is a left-over from old code, long since removed.
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
