On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:50:19 +0200 Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Well, I made things complicated. So, the initial version is just to make V3s CSI working. Beside csi_ops, are there some comments for sunxi_csi_v3s.c? I will send a new version in the next few days. > > Maxime > > -- > Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > http://free-electrons.com Thanks, Yong
