On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:33:49AM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Yong, > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 02:21:20PM +0800, Yong wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:49:23 +0300 > > Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:22:49AM +0800, Yong wrote: > > > > I am waiting for more comments for the sunxi-csi.h. It's pleasure if > > > > you have any suggestions about it. > > > > > > You mean sunxi_csi.h, right? > > > > Yes. My spelling mistake. > > > > > Why do you need the sunxi_csi_ops indirection? Do you expect to add > > > alternative implementations of these ops at some point? > > > > I want to seperate the sunxi_video.c and sunxi_csi_v3s.c. > > sunxi_csi_v3s.c is Soc specific. Maybe there will be sunxi_csi_r40.c > > in the futrue. But the sunxi_video.c and sunxi_csi.c are common. > > I'd say it is a premature optimization. The file separation is fine, IMO, but > the added csi_ops indirection makes the code less readable. Someone with > access to R40 hardware with CSI setup would be a better position to abstract > the platform specific code. I agree Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
