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

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for the patch.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:23:10PM +0900, paul.elder at ideasonboard.com wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 02:25:47PM +0100, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:44:58AM +0100, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> > > On 2020-11-12 15:18:20 +0900, paul.elder at ideasonboard.com wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:20:02AM +0100, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> > > > > On 2020-11-09 10:54:56 +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > > > > > On 09/11/2020 02:25, paul.elder at ideasonboard.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 11:12:23AM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > > > > > >> 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?
> > >
> > > Works for me.
> > 
> > I would prefer to remove it not to have an empty dir and meson.build
> > that build nothing, but both ways are fine. It's really about creating
> > a new dir and sketching out a meson file -if- we want to reuse libipa/
> 
> Well if it's going to be used almost immediately after, we might as well
> keep it...

I also have a small preference for removing it completely, as it's very
easy to add back, and we all know what "almost immediately" often means
;-) I'm fine with either option though.

Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>

> > Acked-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo at jmondi.org>

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart