Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Qui, 2007-04-05 às 17:10 -0400, Michael Krufky escreveu: > >> It appears that I may have been misunderstood. >> >> Your argument is completely valid, I only ask that nobody touch tda8290.c or >> tda827x.c until Hartmut and I are done with our upcoming changes. > Yes. > > It doesn't make sense touching the code right now, before we've agreed > on the changes. > > There's just a point that worries me: Markus, Manu and you are coding > different solutions for the API. We should focus our discussion at the > API changes *then* coding the drivers. Otherwise, the discussion will > just generate warm, since each one will defend his approach, according > with his own foot and it would be really hard to have a common approach. > > My suggestion is to start the discussion from Markus RFC, since it is > the first one who proposed an RFC on this subject, (his second approach > is dated from Feb, 27). He sent the 3rd approach today. > > As it is an RFC, and provided that *all* keep the discussions at the > highest possible technical level, not starting or answering to personal > flames, I can see everyone collaborating on this and converging to a > common sense. As i said .. "With the case of DVB, things are moving, ie not stagnant due to the arrival/addition of new stuff, so that is also an important aspect in deciding how to go about. A high maintenance path is not a viable option." The reason being DVB is a fast moving commercial target. Linux/OSS just barely tries to catch up. I don't care what option is chosen (for the same reason had been silent), but the above is extremely important. There are more things important to DVB than just Hybrid/Analog device support alone. > > This is a good time to remind about good values. > > Happy Easter for all! > Wishing you all the same Regards, Manu _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
