[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [linux-dvb] [PATCH] Userspace tuner
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote:
> Let's add the LKML to this.
> On 9/13/07, Markus Rechberger <> wrote:
> > On 9/12/07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <> wrote:
> > > I don't see any technical reason why tuner drivers should be moved to
> > > userspace. Looking at xc3028 device, the driver is very simple and
> > > doesn't require any special treatment that it isn't possible to be done
> > > at kernel. There are already some implementations on kernelspace that
> > > works fine.
> >
> > As from my side to support the xceive driver properly it needs a
> > rewrite and a proper API description. Since it's not possible to
> > discuss any API changes

Not possible? We're doing it all the time...

However, your ideas were rejected in this discussion,
and you can't seem to get over it.

> > don't get me wrong but the existing community is rather small and
> > kicking off people who are interested in changing things.

IMHO there is a lack of openness caused by people being burned
in past flamewars. This makes it a bit difficult to see through
what happens and why, and to participate. However, I think it
is completely wrong to say that the community is "kicking off people".

> > I'm against how the project works out at the moment and how it worked
> > out in history. Exactly this way will kick off companies to be
> > interested in future like Avermedia. A driver can easily be written
> > within a few weeks and I've been struggling with it for 2 years(!!!)
> > now just for nothing finally telling me that some guys want to steal
> > my code and move it to kernelspace although it would raise more
> > complications with upcoming and current devices which have even more
> > requirements.

Oh dear, there we go again... more flame bait...

I reality, 95% of your driver code could have been merged
without problems, but you refused to take the small, objectionable
part out of the picture.

(For those interested:
The patch changed the internal tuner API and required changes
to all tuner drivers.)

Your all-or-nothing approach didn't work out.

Out of curiosity: How does your userspace approach solve
the hybrid (analog/digital TV) tuner problem which was the
only objectionable part of your work? And why are the kernel
parts of your new interface now less objectionable? What changed?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-13 15:17    [W:0.137 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site