lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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 <mrechberger@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > On 9/12/07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org> 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:
    http://mcentral.de/~mrec/patches/v4l-dvb/hg_v4l-dvb-experimental_01.patch
    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?


    Johannes
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-09-13 15:17    [W:0.024 / U:90.892 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site