On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:28:31 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On Saturday 21 February 2009 14:11:30 Jean Delvare wrote: > > Well, that's basically what Hans has been doing with > > v4l2-i2c-drv-legacy.h for months now, isn't it? This is the easy part > > (even though even this wasn't exactly trivial...) > > Sorry, that's not quite true. v4l2-i2c-drv-legacy.h is for i2c modules that > are either called new-style (by converted adapter drivers) or old-style (by > not-yet converted adapter drivers). It does that by creating two i2c_driver > instances, one for each variant. By contrast, i2c modules that include > v4l2-i2c-drv.h can only be called by converted adapter drivers. This has > nothing to do with detect(). I'm not using that at all. > > It was always the intention that the legacy.h header would disappear once > all adapter drivers are converted. But v4l2-i2c-drv.h still has to support > kernels < 2.6.22 were the new API doesn't exist at all. That's the sticking > point that prevents us from dropping this header as well and go back to a > normally written i2c module without all this nonsense. > > You may have meant the same thing, Jean, but I thought I should clarify it > yet a bit more :-) Thanks for the clarification. This just shows one thing: this compatibility layer has become so complex that even I lose track of what is what... > (...) > The point is not how easy or complicated these headers are, the point is > that we shouldn't have them at all since they make no sense in the upstream > kernel. True... -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
