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.
But I'd defer to the media maintainers on that.
Thanks,
baruch
--
http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- baruch@xxxxxxxxxx - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -
