On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 05:13:59PM +0100, Dmitry Sepp wrote: > Hi, > > On Dienstag, 17. Dezember 2019 15:09:16 CET Keiichi Watanabe wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks Tomasz and Gerd for the suggestions and information. > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:39 PM Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > On the host side, the encode and decode APIs are different as well, so > > > > having separate implementation decoder and encoder, possibly just > > > > sharing some helper code, would make much more sense. > > > > > > When going down that route I'd suggest to use two device ids (even when > > > specifying both variants in one spec section and one header file due to > > > the overlaps) instead of feature flags. > > > > Sounds good. It makes sense to use different device IDs for different > > devices. > Does this mean one driver handles both? Or we have two separate drivers? That is the driver writers choice. You can have a single kernel module registering as driver for both IDs. Or you can have two kernel modules, each registering for one of the IDs, possibly with a third library module with helper code for common bits like buffer management. cheers, Gerd
