Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes: > Em Sun, 25 Jun 2017 19:52:59 +0200 > Daniel Scheller <d.scheller....@gmail.com> escreveu: > > > Am Sat, 24 Jun 2017 13:50:01 -0300 > > schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mche...@s-opensource.com>: > > > > > Em Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:35:27 +0200 > > > Ralph Metzler <r...@metzlerbros.de> escreveu: > > > > > > Would it be possible to change things at the dddvb tree to make > > > it to use our coding style (for example, replacing CamelCase by the > > > kernel_style), in order to minimize the amount of work to sync from > > > your tree? > > > > Note that this mostly (if not only) applies to the demodulator drivers. > > ddbridge itself is okay in this regard and has only some minors like > > indent, whitespace and such. There's one bigger thing though I'm not sure > > of if it needs to be changed: Beginning with the 0.9.9-tarball release, > > functionality was split from ddbridge-core.c into ddbridge.c, > > ddbridge-i2c.c, ddbridge-mod.c and ddbridge-ns.c (the two latter being > > modulator and netstream/octonet related code, which we don't need at this > > time). The issue is that this wasn't done by updating the build system to > > build multiple objects, but rather build from ddbridge.c which then does > > '#include "ddbridge-core.c"', and in that file '#include > > "ddbridge-i2c.c"'. See [1] for how it actually looks like in the file. > > Mauro, do you think this is acceptable? > > Splitting it is OK. Including a *.c file no. It shouldn't be hard to
The main reason for using includes at the time were that the OctopusNet driver (see https://github.com/DigitalDevices/dddvb/blob/master/ddbridge/octonet.c) was using the same files but with different defines set. Those differences are pretty much gone now. > change the makefile to: > obj-ddbridge = ddbridge-main.o ddbridge-core.o ddbridge-i2c.o \ > ddbridge-modulator.o and ddbridge-ns.o > > The only detail is that "ddbridge.c" should be renamed to > ddbridge-core.c (or something similar) and some *.h files will > be needed. Hmm, ddbridge -> ddbridge-main would be fine. Renaming ddbridge to ddbridge-core and ddbridge-core to something else would be confusing. Regards, Ralph
