Hello Johannes,
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
Apart from the S2 stuff (haven't looked at it in this
version of the patch), there are still a couple of
things which I don't like. Most of them I pointed
out earlier already, but to summaryize and give
some additional explanation:
- too much unnecessary capabilites stuff; I receive a private
mail from Trent and answered:
> See, the DVB Wiki lists a number of applications. You can check them
> all, not one of then looks at fe_caps_t. Why should they?
> If fe_type_t says it's e.g. a DVB-T frontend, that's all the
> application needs to know.
>
> I realise it's different for ATSC, so we have to come up with
> a way to handle it. However, adding a ton of totally
> superflous DVB capability cruft to the API is IMHO wrong.
> (This is just my personal opinion, of course, if a number
> of people vote for it I will simply be overruled.)
>
> ATSC is different than DVB, so needs different handling.
(Well, the DVB-S2 standard contains optional parts, so it
seems useful to be able to query this, but for the mandatory
parts and the other DVB standard it just is NOT useful.)
A question that which Ralph Metzler asked me in the very beginning, and
hence all this current scenario came in..
Well a future vendor advertises, "Hey, this device works OTA all over
the world"
How do you propose to support such a device ?
These days he is too busy i think, or probably he found this discussion
to be too silly..
Manu
_______________________________________________
linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
