Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] media: rockchip: Add a driver for Rockhip's camera interface

[Mehdi Djait]

Hi Paul, Hi Michael

Thank you for the review!

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:48:08AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> On Wed 25 Oct 23, 11:38, Michael Riesch wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > On 10/25/23 10:49, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Mon 23 Oct 23, 15:28, Michael Riesch wrote:
> > >> Typo in the subject: "Rockhip's" -> "Rockchip's"
> > >> I think this typo has been in there for a while now ;-)
> > > 
> > > Great hips make for great dancing!
> > 
> > ...to rock music, obviously.
> 
> :)
> 
> > > [...]
> > >>> +#define write_vip_reg(base, addr, val)  writel(val, (addr) + (base))
> > >>> +#define read_vip_reg(base, addr) readl((addr) + (base))
> > >>
> > >> Please provide those helpers as proper inline functions. As to the
> > >> naming, the "_reg" suffix seems unnecessary.
> > >>
> > >> Alternatively, you could consider converting the driver to use regmap.
> > > 
> > > Come to think of it, I feel like it would make more sense to have an inline
> > > function which is given a struct rk_vip_device instead of having to dereference
> > > it every time in the caller to access the base address.
> > 
> > Indeed. Either using regmap, e.g.,
> > 
> > int regmap_write(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val);
> > 
> > or something equivalant
> > 
> > static inline int cif_write(struct cif_device *device, unsigned int reg,
> > unsigned int val);
> 
> Looks good to me!
> 

Yes, I will change it ro cif_write()

> > Not sure what you agreed on in terms of a method prefix. The Rockchip
> > RGA driver uses "rga_something", the Rockchip ISP driver uses
> > "rkisp1_something". This would mean either "cif_something" or
> > "rkcif_something", right?

I am going with cif_*()

> 
> Yeah I don't really have strong opinions on this so I'll let Mehdi decide
> (as long as it's consistent everywhere in the code).
> 
> I guess there is a slight readability advantage in using "cif_" instead of
> "rkcif_".
> 
> > > [...]
> > >>> +	struct rk_vip_sensor_info	sensor;
> > >>
> > >> Using "sensor" as name does not seem correct. As pointed out above it
> > >> could be a video decoder just as well. Something with "subdevice" maybe?
> > > 
> > > Agreed. I suggest renaming the struct "rk_vip_sensor_info" -> "rk_cif_remote"
> > > and just calling the member "remote".

Yes "remote" sounds right in this situation

--
Kind Regards
Mehdi Djait