On 4 September 2014 11:01, Stuart Haslam <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > I think in practice this will all work out nicely, but we need to work with it a little, so we can work out the kinks. > -- > Stuart. > > -- *Mike Holmes* Linaro Technical Manager / Lead LNG - ODP
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
