[libcamera-devel] [PATCH 15/23] libcamera: IPAManager: Fetch IPAProxy corresponding to pipeline

[Niklas Söderlund]

Hi Paul,

On 2020-09-15 23:20:30 +0900, Paul Elder wrote:
> Now that each pipeline handler has its own IPAProxy implementation, make
> the IPAManager fetch the IPAProxy based on the pipeline handler name.
> Also, since the IPAProxy is used regardless of isolation or no
> isolation, remove the isolation check from the proxy selection.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul Elder <paul.elder at ideasonboard.com>
> ---
>  src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp b/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
> index 046fd5c6..2d0ea242 100644
> --- a/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
> +++ b/src/libcamera/ipa_manager.cpp
> @@ -275,8 +275,8 @@ std::unique_ptr<IPAProxy> IPAManager::createIPA(PipelineHandler *pipe,
>  	 *
>  	 * \todo Implement a better proxy selection
>  	 */
> -	const char *proxyName = self_->isSignatureValid(m)
> -			      ? "IPAProxyThread" : "IPAProxyLinux";
> +	std::string pipeName(pipe->name());
> +	const char *proxyName = pipeName.replace(0, 15, "IPAProxy").c_str();

Bikeshedding time, is it work keeping the IPAProxy prefix? No strong 
opinion just asking ;-)

>  	IPAProxyFactory *pf = nullptr;
>  
>  	for (IPAProxyFactory *factory : IPAProxyFactory::factories()) {
> -- 
> 2.27.0
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libcamera-devel mailing list
> libcamera-devel at lists.libcamera.org
> https://lists.libcamera.org/listinfo/libcamera-devel

-- 
Regards,
Niklas Söderlund