On Thu, Sep 13, 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > Let's add the LKML to this. > > On 9/13/07, Markus Rechberger <mrechberger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/12/07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
