lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:25:48 -0700 From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org> To: Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>, Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] media: vidc: add Host Firmware Interface (HFI) On Mon 22 Aug 06:13 PDT 2016, Stanimir Varbanov wrote: > This is the implementation of HFI. It is loaded with the > responsibility to comunicate with the firmware through an > interface commands and messages. > > - hfi.c has interface functions used by the core, decoder > and encoder parts to comunicate with the firmware. For example > there are functions for session and core initialisation. > I can't help feeling that the split between core.c and hfi.c is a remnant of a vidc driver supporting both HFI and pre-HFI with the same v4l code. What do you think about merging vidc_core with hfi_core and vidc_inst with hfi_inst? Both seems to be in a 1:1 relationship. > - hfi_cmds has packetization operations which preparing > packets to be send from host to firmware. > > - hfi_msgs takes care of messages sent from firmware to the > host. > [..] > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/qcom/vidc/hfi_cmds.c b/drivers/media/platform/qcom/vidc/hfi_cmds.c [..] > + > +static const struct hfi_packetization_ops hfi_default = { > + .sys_init = pkt_sys_init, > + .sys_pc_prep = pkt_sys_pc_prep, > + .sys_idle_indicator = pkt_sys_idle_indicator, > + .sys_power_control = pkt_sys_power_control, > + .sys_set_resource = pkt_sys_set_resource, > + .sys_release_resource = pkt_sys_unset_resource, > + .sys_debug_config = pkt_sys_debug_config, > + .sys_coverage_config = pkt_sys_coverage_config, > + .sys_ping = pkt_sys_ping, > + .sys_image_version = pkt_sys_image_version, > + .ssr_cmd = pkt_ssr_cmd, > + .session_init = pkt_session_init, > + .session_cmd = pkt_session_cmd, > + .session_set_buffers = pkt_session_set_buffers, > + .session_release_buffers = pkt_session_release_buffers, > + .session_etb_decoder = pkt_session_etb_decoder, > + .session_etb_encoder = pkt_session_etb_encoder, > + .session_ftb = pkt_session_ftb, > + .session_parse_seq_header = pkt_session_parse_seq_header, > + .session_get_seq_hdr = pkt_session_get_seq_hdr, > + .session_flush = pkt_session_flush, > + .session_get_property = pkt_session_get_property, > + .session_set_property = pkt_session_set_property, > +}; > + > +static const struct hfi_packetization_ops *get_3xx_ops(void) > +{ > + static struct hfi_packetization_ops hfi_3xx; > + > + hfi_3xx = hfi_default; > + hfi_3xx.session_set_property = pkt_session_set_property_3xx; > + > + return &hfi_3xx; > +} > + > +const struct hfi_packetization_ops * > +hfi_get_pkt_ops(enum hfi_packetization_type type) The only reasonable argument I can come up with for not just exposing these as global functions would be that there are 23 of them... Can we skip the jump table? > +{ > + switch (type) { > + case HFI_PACKETIZATION_LEGACY: > + return &hfi_default; > + case HFI_PACKETIZATION_3XX: > + return get_3xx_ops(); > + } > + > + return NULL; > +} Regards, Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists