Hi Sakari,
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 15:13:11 EEST Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 03:01:14PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Friday, 15 September 2017 17:17:10 EEST Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >> Add three helper functions to call async operations callbacks. Besides
> >> simplifying callbacks, this allows async notifiers to have no ops set,
> >> i.e. it can be left NULL.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Acked-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >> include/media/v4l2-async.h | 1 +
> >> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c
> >> b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c index 7b2125b3d62f..c35d04b9122f
> >> 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-async.c
> >> @@ -25,6 +25,34 @@
> >>
> >> #include <media/v4l2-fwnode.h>
> >> #include <media/v4l2-subdev.h>
> >>
> >> +static int v4l2_async_notifier_call_bound(struct v4l2_async_notifier
> >> *n,
> >> + struct v4l2_subdev *subdev,
> >> + struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!n->ops || !n->ops->bound)
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + return n->ops->bound(n, subdev, asd);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void v4l2_async_notifier_call_unbind(struct v4l2_async_notifier
> >> *n,
> >> + struct v4l2_subdev *subdev,
> >> + struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!n->ops || !n->ops->unbind)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + n->ops->unbind(n, subdev, asd);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int v4l2_async_notifier_call_complete(struct v4l2_async_notifier
> >> *n)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!n->ops || !n->ops->complete)
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + return n->ops->complete(n);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > Wouldn't it be enough to add a single v4l2_async_notifier_call() macro ?
> >
> > #define v4l2_async_notifier_call(n, op, args...) \
> >
> > ((n)->ops && (n)->ops->op ? (n)->ops->op(n, ##args) : 0)
>
> I actually had that in an earlier version but I changed it based on review
> comments from Hans. A single macro isn't enough: some functions have int
> return type. I think the way it is now is nicer.
What bothers me there is the overhead of a function call.
By the way, what's the use case for ops being NULL ?
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
