On 5/15/07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If I compare that solution with the solution I provided your one is > only half way done, you add a dependency for a structure which will > never be fully used (only 1 member of dvb_frontend, dvb_tuner_ops will > be used). As I said, this is a sugestion. For sure, improvements can be done. The main point is not risking breaking other drivers. > If you look at v4l_dvb_tuner_ops it's clear what it intends to be and > in no way it adds extra struct definitions which do not belong there, > if you look at dvb_frontend in tuner-core.c it has nothing to do with > the tuner, it also contains the callbacks for the digital demod. > > It also requires all the dvb headers. > #include "dvb_frontend.h" > > #include <linux/dvb/frontend.h> > #include "dvbdev.h" > > dvbdev.h is not needed at all either, even if gcc might wipe out the > defined functions because they're not used. I can't see any troubles including those headers, except for a slower compilation. Later, somebody may write a patch reorganizing the includes. > We shouldn't care about hacks to keep the noise on the ML low, put the > technical aspect (which includes a solution for all the requirements) > infront of everything then I might agree with your patch. It is not a matter of keeping noise low, but, instead, avoid breaking existing drivers. This is a technical issue: smaller changes means less lines to check, and more unlikely to break an existing driver.
I really understand that issue I just want to point to the saa7114 changes which broke the em28xx MSI devices in the kernel, there was neither a revert or something else. If I'd have to rate the patch I sent to the v4l maintainer list I'd give it 3/10 pts. the driver is still broken even in the v4l-dvb-experimental repository since I haven't ported that change from the v4l-dvb-kernel repository to the experimental one yet. It's important to avoid breaking devices that for it should be tested and discussed. But again I see everyone here is writing around the whole issue. Oliver wrote that the patches are too big and that it will take alot time to review them (it was also alot time to write them, so telling me about a time factor is more than unfair). I suggest to get your hands dirty with it and start to test it and comment the outstanding points I wrote in the first email. thanks, Markus _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
