On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:41:17PM +0100, Victor Kamensky wrote: > On 4 September 2014 03:10, Stuart Haslam <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:18:11AM +0100, Mike Holmes wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Mike Holmes <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> > >> This creates a new section in the documentaion to group everything > >> related to buffers. It appears to make things much more acessable > >> although it needs to have some real description added to the section. > >> > > > > Looks better to me. It also allows more freedom within the implementation > > to place things in different header files and still have the documentation > > look the same. > > If implementations will have freedom to place things in different headers, > how one app source will work with all of them? Which header it would > include? I am not against fancy doxygen syntax, but mapping ODP > symbol to header file name should be normative part of ODP. Of course, > such mapping could be supported with set of implementation defined > headers that are internally included by one that constitute ODP API. > > Thanks, > Victor >
This has come up before and I think the intention has always been that the application should just include odp.h and the implementation can do whatever it likes with header files beyond that (except perhaps that they need to be named odp_*.h). Personally though, I would rather the file names were fixed, and I did wonder when writing that comment whether this decision should be revisited. -- Stuart. _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
