[libcamera-devel] [PATCH v2 8/9] android: camera_device: Remove single buffer restriction.

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Kieran,

On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 12:07:57PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> On 03/07/2020 01:41, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> >> A capture request is no longer limited to a single output buffer.
> >> Remove the limitation, but (for now) keep the check to ensure that
> >> at least one buffer is always provided.
> >>
> >> This 'should never happen' so could be a LOG(Fatal) or removed.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham at ideasonboard.com>
> >> ---
> >>  src/android/camera_device.cpp | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/src/android/camera_device.cpp b/src/android/camera_device.cpp
> >> index eea8c8c50352..4681fd8af90b 100644
> >> --- a/src/android/camera_device.cpp
> >> +++ b/src/android/camera_device.cpp
> >> @@ -1046,7 +1046,7 @@ static FrameBuffer *newFrameBuffer(const buffer_handle_t camera3buffer)
> >>  
> >>  int CameraDevice::processCaptureRequest(camera3_capture_request_t *camera3Request)
> >>  {
> >> -	if (camera3Request->num_output_buffers != 1) {
> >> +	if (camera3Request->num_output_buffers < 1) {
> >>  		LOG(HAL, Error) << "Invalid number of output buffers: "
> >>  				<< camera3Request->num_output_buffers;
> > 
> > As num_output_buffers is unsigned, it can only be 0 here. I'd write
> > 
> >  		LOG(HAL, Error) << "No output buffers provided";
> 
> 
> Good point, would you also change the conditional to:
> 
>   if (!camera3Request->num_output_buffers) {

Yes, I think this is best.

> 
> or
>   if (camera3Request->num_output_buffers == 0) {
> 
> in that case?
> 
> > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>
> > 
> >>  		return -EINVAL;

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart