Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] dt-bindings: add binding documentation for Allwinner CSI

[Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1273 bytes --]

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-NswTu9S1W3P6gbPvEgmw2w@public.gmane.org> 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

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]