[libcamera-devel] [PATCH v4 31/37] ipa: remove libipa

[paul.elder at ideasonboard.com]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:20:02AM +0100, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 2020-11-09 10:54:56 +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > On 09/11/2020 02:25, paul.elder at ideasonboard.com wrote:
> > > Hi Kieran,
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 11:12:23AM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > >> Hi Paul,
> > >>
> > >> On 06/11/2020 10:37, Paul Elder wrote:
> > >>> As every pipeline and have its own proxy, IPAInterfaceWrapper is no
> > >>> longer necessary. Since it's the only member of libipa, remove libipa
> > >>> completely.
> > >>
> > >> Ah, I think I foresee the (imminent?) addition of items to libipa to be
> > >> able to share some common features across open-source IPA modules.
> > >> (closed source ones won't share of course).
> > > 
> > > Ah, I see.
> > > 
> > >> Could we have this patch strip out the dead code, but /keep/ the libipa
> > >> itself as a skeleton at least?
> > > 
> > > Well yes, but... then we'd just have a libipa directory and meson file
> > > but no files to actually build... is that fine?
> > 
> > Hrm, well you could keep an empty .cpp file but perhaps it's more than
> > needed.
> > 
> > Otherwise, sure lets just let the files disappear, and we can re-add
> > when needed. Maybe that's cleaner anyway.
> > 
> > Niklas, I think you're likely working on IPA topics the soonest, do you
> > have a preference?
> 
> No real preference, it's nice to not have to readd plumbing in a short 
> timespan after it was removed, but at the same time digging this up from 
> history is easy. So whatever is the quickest route to get this series 
> merged is my preference :-)

Ah yeah, that's true. Okay, I'll keep it then, since it's anticipated to
be needed in the near future.

I'll just remove everything regarding the IPAInterfaceWrapper, and I'll
leave libipa's meson stuff intact, so it'll just be empty libipa_headers
and libipa_sources. When we add stuff back to libipa then we can just
populate those.

Is that sufficient?


Thanks,

Paul

<snip>