On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Trent Piepho wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > You are unfair. The pull request came with a short log of all the > > > changes. > > > > "short" log. His entire series was decribed with fewer words than I would > > use on a single patch that changes ten lines. > > In general I tend to like detailed patch logs as much as you do. But in > this case Hans is doing almost all the work by himself and it is very > needed, and the faster completed, the better. So I am really to trade > log details for a faster conversion. I guess that I don't consider documentation to be optional. > > > (...) > > > I am not familiar enough with this part of the code to say. But I guess > > > it doesn't really matter, as it wasn't my point anyway. > > > > It seems like your point was that conversions to v4l2_subdev allow drivers > > to be more efficient remove lots of code. The numbers I see just don't > > support that claim. > > No, sorry if I didn't make it clear, but that wasn't my point. My point > was only about the change in i2c binding model. This change clearly > results in a net shrink as far as lines of code are concerned. Does it? When we can use the model as it's designed, then I think it's clearly much better. But when one is emulating the detection behaviour, like it appears the bttv patches do, I don't see what's better. -- 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
