On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 06:52:20AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:01:18 +0300
> Sakari Ailus <[email protected]> escreveu:
>
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > Feel free to ignore the comments on the first patch regarding the functions
> > below. There are other issues there though.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 06:13:47PM -0400, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > There is already a typedef for the parse endpoint function.
> > > However, instead of using it, it is redefined at the C file
> > > (and on one of the function headers).
> > >
> > > Replace them by the function typedef, in order to cleanup
> > > several related coding style warnings.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c | 64 ++++++++++++---------------
> > > include/media/v4l2-fwnode.h | 19 ++++----
> > > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c
> > > b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c
> > > index 4e518d5fddd8..a7c2487154a4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-fwnode.c
> > > @@ -596,12 +596,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_fwnode_put_link);
> > >
> > > static int
> > > v4l2_async_notifier_fwnode_parse_endpoint(struct device *dev,
> > > - struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier,
> > > - struct fwnode_handle *endpoint,
> > > - unsigned int asd_struct_size,
> > > - int (*parse_endpoint)(struct device *dev,
> > > - struct v4l2_fwnode_endpoint *vep,
> > > - struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd))
> > > + struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier,
> > > + struct fwnode_handle *endpoint,
> > > + unsigned int asd_struct_size,
> > > + parse_endpoint_func parse_endpoint)
> > > {
> > > struct v4l2_fwnode_endpoint vep = { .bus_type = 0 };
> > > struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd;
> > > @@ -657,13 +655,12 @@ v4l2_async_notifier_fwnode_parse_endpoint(struct
> > > device *dev,
> > > }
> > >
> > > static int
> > > -__v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_endpoints(struct device *dev,
> > > - struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier,
> > > - size_t asd_struct_size,
> > > - unsigned int port, bool has_port,
> > > - int (*parse_endpoint)(struct device *dev,
> > > - struct v4l2_fwnode_endpoint *vep,
> > > - struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd))
> > > +__v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_ep(struct device *dev,
> > > + struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier,
> > > + size_t asd_struct_size,
> > > + unsigned int port,
> > > + bool has_port,
> > > + parse_endpoint_func parse_endpoint)
> > > {
> > > struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> > > int ret = 0;
> > > @@ -708,31 +705,27 @@ __v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_endpoints(struct
> > > device *dev,
> > >
> > > int
> > > v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_endpoints(struct device *dev,
> > > - struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier,
> > > - size_t asd_struct_size,
> > > - int (*parse_endpoint)(struct device *dev,
> > > - struct v4l2_fwnode_endpoint *vep,
> > > - struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd))
> > > + struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier,
> > > + size_t asd_struct_size,
> > > + parse_endpoint_func parse_endpoint)
> > > {
> > > - return __v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_endpoints(dev, notifier,
> > > - asd_struct_size, 0,
> > > - false,
> > > - parse_endpoint);
> > > + return __v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_ep(dev, notifier,
> > > + asd_struct_size, 0,
> > > + false, parse_endpoint);
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_endpoints);
> > >
> > > int
> > > v4l2_async_notifier_parse_fwnode_endpoints_by_port(struct device *dev,
> > > - struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier,
> > > - size_t asd_struct_size, unsigned int port,
> > > - int (*parse_endpoint)(struct device *dev,
> > > - struct v4l2_fwnode_endpoint *vep,
> > > - struct v4l2_async_subdev *asd))
> > > + struct v4l2_async_notifier
> > > *notifier,
> > > + size_t asd_struct_size,
> > > + unsigned int port,
> > > + parse_endpoint_func
> > > parse_endpoint)
> >
> > This is still over 80 here. I think we could think of abbreviating what's
> > in the function name, not limiting to the endpoint. I think I'd prefer to
> > leave that for 4.21 as there's not much time anymore.
>
> Yes, I know. Renaming the function is the only way to get rid of
> those remaining warnings. If you're ok with renaming, IMHO it is best
> do do it right now, as we are already churning a lot of fwnode-related
> code, avoiding the need of touching it again for 4.21.
This will presumably continue in v4.21 (or later). As noted in the cover
page of the fwnode patchset:
This patchset does not address remaining issues such as supporting
setting defaults for e.g. bridge drivers with multiple ports, but
with Steve Longerbeam's patchset we're much closer to that goal.
--
Sakari Ailus
[email protected]
