On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Steven Toth <stoth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Artem Makhutov wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 02:29:30PM -0400, Steven Toth wrote: >>> Regarding the multiproto situation: >>> >> >> Can you please explain me what you do not like in multiproto? > > > 1. Where is the support for ISDB-T/ATSC-MH/CMMB/DVB-H/DBM-T/H and other > modulation types. If we're going to make a massive kernel change then > why aren't we accommodating these new modulation types? Adding a new modulation is just as good as adding in a new definition, nothing more than that. > If we don't > added now then we'll have the rev the kernel ABI again in 2 months.... There is more than enough space in the enumeration for anything to be added. Just adding more definitions without supported hardware is purely pointless. > that isn't a forward looking future proof API. The future doesn't lie in terms of some just basic modulation definitions alone. > 2. It's too big, too risky, too late. It doesn't add enough new fatures > to the kernel to justify the massive code change. In fact in legacy mode, it is just as large as the existing API. In non-legacy mode it is even still lighter. It's quite absurd to state that it is too big. Also you need custom algorithm support for many of the newer demodulators (Eg: stb0899 and others) which the existing API doesn't support. Well this is also supported by the multiproto tree. Manu _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
