Philip Prindeville wrote: > Manu Abraham wrote: > >> Edgar Toernig wrote: >> >>> It should be possible to create a dummy bttv driver that only >>> supplies GPIO and I2C access. This dummy driver could even be >>> part of the dvb-bt878 driver. (I may be wrong but wasn't the >>> first version of the dvb-bt878 driver like that?) But you >>> have to find someone who's willing spends some hours of work >>> to do that :-) I wouldn't - it's unsatisfying to invest a >>> lot of work just to "remove" functionality. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Yeah, i can understand your feelings. It is kind of very frustraing >> when working with a card than spans subsystems, especially when you >> have a layered module. I have been subjected to the extreme >> frustration a while back, that bttv in V4L used to get screwed up, >> resulting in breakages elsewhere. The clueless users will keep >> complaining that other modules are not functioning as expected. Well, >> this is really hard. >> >> Well, this is the disadvantage of not having code duplication. >> >> But the real aspect of it is, that if all modules were to have code >> duplication, imagine the sixe of the kernel, and maintainabilty issues. >> >> The adavantage of not having code duplication is that bugs can be >> easily identified out, as the code review does not happen for a >> particular hardware, but happens in a generic manner. >> >> The only way compatibility can be ensured is subsystems play nice to >> each other. A while back it was quite difficult to get dvb-kernel and >> CVS to play nice to each other. Anyhow that situation has improved a >> lot, and it is not as bad as it was earlier. Anyway, both aspects has >> their own merits and demerits. >> >> Manu > > > > > What about putting the glue code into a pseudo-device module that both > the V4L and DVB modules depend on? > Hello Philip, Things are easier when said, than done. What about, say send in some code implying what you mean to do. To kickstart, maybe you can try out with a single bridge driver. You can try for one card how it looks like, and if that looks good, then why shall we not ? Eventhough, I didn't follow what you meant. Any attempt to make things simpler would be beneficial to all. Regards, Manu
