linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: vimc: move private defines to a common header

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190812142447.GF5006@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 17:24:47 +0300
From:   Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     helen.koike@...labora.com,
        André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com>,
        mchehab@...nel.org, hverkuil@...all.nl,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: vimc: move private defines to a common header

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