[libcamera-devel] [PATCH v5 1/9] controls: Add boolean constructors for ControlInfo

[Jacopo Mondi]

Hi Paul,

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 02:45:52PM +0900, paul.elder at ideasonboard.com wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 03:06:09PM +0200, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 07:12:59PM +0900, Paul Elder wrote:
> > > It would be convenient to be able to iterate over available boolean
> > > values, for example for controls that designate if some function can be
> > > enabled/disabled. The current min/max/def constructor is insufficient,
> > > as .values() is empty, so the values cannot be easily iterated over, and
> > > creating a Span of booleans does not work for the values constructor.
> > >
> > > Add new constructors to ControlInfo that takes a set of booleans (if
> > > both booleans are valid values) plus a default, and another that takes
> > > only one boolean (if only one boolean is a valid value).
> > >
> > > Update the ControlInfo test accordingly.
> >
> > Thank you for considering my suggestion!
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Elder <paul.elder at ideasonboard.com>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v5:
> > > - break away the single-value one to a different constructor
> > >
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - use set instead of span of bools
> > > - add assertion to make sure that the default is a valid value
> > > - update the test
> > > ---
> > >  include/libcamera/controls.h   |  3 +++
> > >  src/libcamera/controls.cpp     | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  test/controls/control_info.cpp | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 65 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/libcamera/controls.h b/include/libcamera/controls.h
> > > index 1bc958a4..de733bd8 100644
> > > --- a/include/libcamera/controls.h
> > > +++ b/include/libcamera/controls.h
> > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > >  #define __LIBCAMERA_CONTROLS_H__
> > >
> > >  #include <assert.h>
> > > +#include <set>
> > >  #include <stdint.h>
> > >  #include <string>
> > >  #include <unordered_map>
> > > @@ -272,6 +273,8 @@ public:
> > >  			     const ControlValue &def = 0);
> > >  	explicit ControlInfo(Span<const ControlValue> values,
> > >  			     const ControlValue &def = {});
> > > +	explicit ControlInfo(std::set<bool> values, bool def);
> >
> > No need for explicit if the constructor accepts two arguments
> >
> > > +	explicit ControlInfo(bool value);
> > >
> > >  	const ControlValue &min() const { return min_; }
> > >  	const ControlValue &max() const { return max_; }
> > > diff --git a/src/libcamera/controls.cpp b/src/libcamera/controls.cpp
> > > index 78109f41..283472c5 100644
> > > --- a/src/libcamera/controls.cpp
> > > +++ b/src/libcamera/controls.cpp
> > > @@ -514,6 +514,35 @@ ControlInfo::ControlInfo(Span<const ControlValue> values,
> > >  		values_.push_back(value);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * \brief Construct a boolean ControlInfo with both boolean values
> > > + * \param[in] values The control valid boolean values (both true and false)
> > > + * \param[in] def The control default boolean value
> >
> > I'm still not super happy with the outcome, as the 'valid values' can
> > be true/false and nothing else, so passing them in makes not much
> > sense. But as said in the previous review that's how we could
> > disambiguate between a ControlInfo that supports both values and one
> > that only supports true or false. Unless something smarter comes to
>
> Yeah that was the idea. It's unnecessary information but it makes the
> distinction clear :/
>
> > mind, I guess we could now live with this ?
> >
> > > + *
> > > + * Construct a ControlInfo for a boolean control, where both true and false are
> > > + * valid values. \a values must be { false, true } (the order is irrelevant).
> > > + * The minimum value will always be false, and the maximum always true. The
> > > + * default value is \a def.
> > > + */
> > > +ControlInfo::ControlInfo(std::set<bool> values, bool def)
> > > +	: min_(false), max_(true), def_(def), values_({ false, true })
> > > +{
> > > +	assert(values.count(def) && values.size() == 2);
> >
> > Be aware this will accept ControlInfo({true, true}, false);
>
> It's a std::set<bool> so if you do { true, true } then values.size()
> should be 1.
>
> At least that was my reasoning. Is it wrong?
>

Oh you're right, I've overlooked the container type! Thanks for
the clarification!


> >
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * \brief Construct a boolean ControlInfo with only one valid value
> > > + * \param[in] value The control valid boolean value
> > > + *
> > > + * Construct a ControlInfo for a boolean control, where there is only valid
> > > + * value. The minimum, maximum, and default values will all be \a value.
> > > + */
> > > +ControlInfo::ControlInfo(bool value)
> > > +	: min_(value), max_(value), def_(value)
> > > +{
> > > +	values_ = { value };
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  /**
> > >   * \fn ControlInfo::min()
> > >   * \brief Retrieve the minimum value of the control
> > > diff --git a/test/controls/control_info.cpp b/test/controls/control_info.cpp
> > > index 1e05e131..2827473b 100644
> > > --- a/test/controls/control_info.cpp
> > > +++ b/test/controls/control_info.cpp
> > > @@ -44,6 +44,39 @@ protected:
> > >  			return TestFail;
> > >  		}
> > >
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * Test information retrieval from a control with boolean
> > > +		 * values.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		ControlInfo aeEnable({ false, true }, false);
> > > +
> > > +		if (aeEnable.min().get<bool>() != false ||
> > > +		    aeEnable.def().get<bool>() != false ||
> > > +		    aeEnable.max().get<bool>() != true) {
> > > +			cout << "Invalid control range for AeEnable" << endl;
> > > +			return TestFail;
> > > +		}
> > > +
> > > +		if (aeEnable.values()[0].get<bool>() != false ||
> > > +		    aeEnable.values()[1].get<bool>() != true) {
> > > +			cout << "Invalid control values for AeEnable" << endl;
> > > +			return TestFail;
> > > +		}
> > > +
> > > +		ControlInfo awbEnable(true);
> > > +
> > > +		if (awbEnable.min().get<bool>() != true ||
> > > +		    awbEnable.def().get<bool>() != true ||
> > > +		    awbEnable.max().get<bool>() != true) {
> > > +			cout << "Invalid control range for AwbEnable" << endl;
> > > +			return TestFail;
> > > +		}
> > > +
> > > +		if (awbEnable.values()[0].get<bool>() != true) {
> > > +			cout << "Invalid control values for AwbEnable" << endl;
> > > +			return TestFail;
> > > +		}
> > > +
> >
> > As said, not in love with this, but I don't have anything better to
> > suggest :)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo at jmondi.org>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
> >
> > >  		return TestPass;
> > >  	}
> > >  };
> > > --
> > > 2.27.0
> > >