Hi Mauro, On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:01:16 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > From the discussions we already have, I noticed some points to take care of: > > 1) about the lirc support, I don't think we should change a kernel driver due > to an out-of-tree kernel driver. As I've commented on PATCH 3/6 discussion, we > need to better address this with lirc developers; Well, the new binding model makes it harder for "rogue" drivers such as lirc_i2c. They will need _some_ form of cooperation from us, which will most likely come when they get merged into the kernel tree. > 2) the way Mike is proposing to solve the issue with pvrusb2 will break > userspace usage for people that have those devices whose IR work with the > in-kernel IR i2c driver. This means that we'll cause a kernel regression due to > an out-of-tree driver; > > 3) So far, nobody gave us any positive return that the new IR model is working with > any of the touched drivers. So, more tests are needed. I'm expecting to have a > positive reply for each of the touched drivers. People, please test! Yes, please! :) > Since the merge window is almost finished, IMO, we should postpone those > changes to 2.6.31, (...) The legacy i2c model will be gone in 2.6.30. Really. Hans and myself have put enough energy into this to not let it slip for just a miserable infrared support module which I understand is hardly used by anyone. So it's really up to you, either you accept my ir-kbd-i2c conversion "now" (that is, when it has received the minimum testing and reviewing it deserves) and ir-kbd-i2c has a chance to work in 2.6.30, or you don't and I'll just have to mark ir-kbd-i2c as BROKEN to prevent build failures. > to better address the lirc issue and to give people more > time for testing, applying the changesets after the end of the merge window at > the v4l/dvb development tree. This will help people to test, review and propose > changes if needed. These changes are on-going for over a year now. If the lirc people didn't hear about it so far, I doubt they will pay more attention just because we delay the deadline by 2 months. The only thing that will get their attention is when lirc_i2c break. So let's just do that ;) Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be (too) rude to lirc developers. If they need help to port their code to the new i2c binding model, I'll help them. If they need help to merge lirc_i2c into the kernel, I'll help as well. But I don't see any point in delaying important, long awaited kernel changes just for them. As long as they are out-of-tree, they can fix things after the fact easily. They aren't affected by the merge window. They'll have several weeks before kernel 2.6.30 is actually released, which they can use to fix anything that broke. Thanks, -- 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
