Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] media: vivid: Improve timestamping
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, gfmandaji@gmail.com
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkcamp@lists.libreplanetbr.org
References: <20181202134538.GA18886@gfm-note>
 <CAK8P3a2of9sZ5BGCKshCjFkpt8q6s-KD-9XC4SGYP2Ppj7fjEw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <c3d75256-bfdc-6f36-1e6e-ad4e5cd9b855@xs4all.nl>
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:15:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2of9sZ5BGCKshCjFkpt8q6s-KD-9XC4SGYP2Ppj7fjEw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12/02/2018 09:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 2:47 PM Gabriel Francisco Mandaji
> <gfmandaji@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> @@ -667,10 +653,28 @@ static void vivid_overlay(struct vivid_dev *dev, struct vivid_buffer *buf)
>>         }
>>  }
>>
>> +static void vivid_cap_update_frame_period(struct vivid_dev *dev)
>> +{
>> +       u64 f_period;
>> +
>> +       f_period = (u64)dev->timeperframe_vid_cap.numerator * 1000000000;
>> +       do_div(f_period, dev->timeperframe_vid_cap.denominator);
>> +       if (dev->field_cap == V4L2_FIELD_ALTERNATE)
>> +               do_div(f_period, 2);
>> +       /*
>> +        * If "End of Frame", then offset the exposure time by 0.9
>> +        * of the frame period.
>> +        */
>> +       dev->cap_frame_eof_offset = f_period * 9;
>> +       do_div(dev->cap_frame_eof_offset, 10);
>> +       dev->cap_frame_period = f_period;
>> +}
> 
> Doing two or three do_div() operations is going to make this rather
> expensive on 32-bit architectures, and it looks like this happens for
> each frame?
> 
> Since each one is a multiplication followed by a division, could this
> be changed to using a different factor followed by a bit shift?

The division by 2 can obviously be replaced by a shift, and the
'End of Frame' calculation can be simplified as well by multiplying by
7 and dividing by 8 (again a simple shift): this equals 0.875 which is
close enough to 0.9 (so update the comment as well).

It's all a bit overkill since this function isn't called very often,
but these are easy changes to make.

Regards,

	Hans