Hi David and Laurent, > -----Original Message----- > From: Laurent Pinchart [mailto:laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 11:29 AM > To: David Cohen > Cc: Aguirre, Sergio; linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [omap3isp RFC][PATCH 2/4] omap3isp: Move CCDC LSC prefetch > wait to main isp code > > Hi David, > > On Saturday 20 November 2010 12:39:56 David Cohen wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:23:49AM +0100, ext Sergio Aguirre wrote: > > > Since this sequence strictly touches ISP global registers, it's > > > not really part of the same register address space than the CCDC. > > > > > > Do this check in main isp code instead. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergio Aguirre <saaguirre@xxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/media/video/isp/isp.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > drivers/media/video/isp/isp.h | 2 ++ > > > drivers/media/video/isp/ispccdc.c | 26 +------------------------- > > > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/video/isp/isp.c > > > b/drivers/media/video/isp/isp.c index 2e5030f..ee45eb6 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/media/video/isp/isp.c > > > +++ b/drivers/media/video/isp/isp.c > > > @@ -339,6 +339,30 @@ void isphist_dma_done(struct isp_device *isp) > > > > > > } > > > > > > } > > > > > > +int ispccdc_lsc_wait_prefetch(struct isp_device *isp) > > > > This is up to you, but to ensure this function now belongs to ISP core > > and not CCDC anymore, I would change the function name to something like > > isp_ccdc_lsc_wait_prefetch(). > > isp_* is prefix for ISP core and ispccdc_* is prefix for CCDC driver. > > I know we have the isphist_dma_done() inside ISP core, but changing it > > to isp_hist_dma_done could be a good cleanup as well. > > But this is my opinion only. :) > > I agree. I plan to submit a patch at some point that will rename all non- > static functions to use the omap3isp_ prefix instead of the isp_ prefix. > Static functions should use the module name as prefix (ccdc_, preview_, > ...). Sounds good. > > It will be a simple patch but will conflict with pretty much everything, > so > I'll try to push at at a quiet time (or at least quiet enough) to minimize > disturbances. I will also see if I can use spatch [1] to generate it. Ok, so, sounds to me then this leaves my patch as-is, and we'll wait for Laurent's coccinelle-assisted changes on top in the future. Is that correct? Regards, Sergio > > > [1] http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/ > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
