Hi Sakari, On 10/4/22 00:01, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: >>> +#define V4L2_SUBDEV_ROUTE_FL_SOURCE (1U << 1) >> >> Can we rename this to _FL_INTERNAL_SOURCE? Just 'SOURCE' is very confusing >> IMHO. The name 'INTERNAL_SOURCE' makes it clear that it is generated internally, >> and so does not come from an external sink-side endpoint. >> >> I also think that the documentation for this flag in patch 04/19 is very vague, >> I'll comment on that patch as well. > > Having descriptive names is important but I think "SOURCE" as such is fine > for the purpose. Adding "INTERNAL_" adds 9 characters to what is already a > very long name, making the flag very clumsy to use in code. That's why I > would prefer to keep it as-is. > _FL_SOURCE is meaningless (at least to me): there are so many 'source' and 'sink' references, that just plain 'SOURCE' doesn't help me understand what the flag means. I did consider INT_SOURCE, but I thought 'INT' is too close to 'interrupt'. I'm OK with that, though. Another alternative would be _FL_NO_SINK: that clearly conveys that 1) there is no sink, and implies that 2) the source is internally generated. Or perhaps: _FL_SOURCE_ONLY? But let's avoid V4L2_SUBDEV_ROUTE_FL_SOURCE: to me that just says that the route has a source, but that's true for all routes. There is nothing in the flag name to indicate that the route has *only* a source and no sink. Regards, Hans
