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
