Hi Steve, On Wed, Oct 31, 2007, Steven Toth wrote: > > You've miss-interpreted my comments. > > I suggested that the API should be defined, but not necessarily > implemented. I was suggesting that we define enough API to generate a > test tree and make some progress. Supporting your earlier statement, I > suggested that the small amount of unimplemented API (which you > suggested was inconsequential) could be implemented while other > developers were testing the core TV functionality. ... > I'm wasting my time here. I was hoping you would outline how you would like to proceed. Instead you ask Manu for his plans and then declare "I don't like it" -- IMHO that's a bit lame. May I suggest that you create a new tree which uses just the bits from Manu's tree which you intend to reuse (of course keeping copyright/authorship attribution intact), and rebase your HVR4000 on top of it? IMHO the userspace-visible API (i.e. the changes to include/linux/dvb/frontend.h only) was discussed extensively, and while there still are a few missing pieces I don't see the need to restart from scratch. I know that e.g. Felix Domke mentioned he'd prefer a more minimalistic frontend.h API change. Personally I wouldn't mind but I think the time to bang out a complete proposal, and discuss it and find supporters for it will take longer than just going with what we have now in Manu's tree. I haven't looked at Manu's dvb-core changes yet. Currently it is also not clear to me if your problem is with the code or just with the fact that Manu owns the code and you can't go forward without him. But the latter is what I tried to address with my proposal to create a repository which splits API/dvb-core changes from the STB0899 driver. Please outline what your actual problem is, maybe then I can help to resolve it. Johannes _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
