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:

quoted

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:49:23 +0300
Baruch Siach [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:22:49AM +0800, Yong wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

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