Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: vimc: move private defines to a common header

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Shua,

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 08:19:27AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 8/10/19 8:14 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:45:41PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> >> In preparation for collapsing the component driver structure into
> >> a monolith, move private device structure defines to a new common
> >> header file.
> > 
> > Apart from the vimc_device structure, this doesn't seem to be needed.
> > I'd rather keep each structure private to the .c file that handles it,
> > and only share vimc_device globally.
> 
> Right. I initially thought that I needed these global. Once I completed
> the patches without needing these as global, I overlooked updating the
> patches.
> 
> I will take care of that. Any thoughts on vimc.h vs. adding vimc_device
> struct to existing vimc-common.h
> 
> As I explained to Helen in response to her comment about:
> 
> "My thinking is that vimc-common.h is common for all the subdevs and
> putting vimc-core defines and structures it shares it with the subdev
> files can be in a separate file.
> 
> It is more of design choice to keep structures and defined organized.
> Originally I was thinking all the subdev device structires need to be
> global, and my patch set I sent out as such doesn't need that. I just
> overlooked that when I sent the patches out.
> 
> This reduces the number of things that need to be common, I don't really
> have any strong reasons for either choice of adding common defines to
> vimc-common.h vs vimc.h - maybe with a slight tilt towards vimc.h"

The vimc_device structure fits nicely in vimc-common.h in my opinion, as
it's used by every component. I don't care much either way.

> Thanks all for a quick review and testing. I will work on v2 with your
> comments. I want to make sure topology either looks the same as what
> is in media master. I think it is, but I want to double check.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart