Em Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:35:29 +0200 Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Monday 17 August 2009 08:19:51 Hans Verkuil wrote: > > On Monday 17 August 2009 02:49:01 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > Em Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:18:20 +0200 > > > > > > Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > On Saturday 15 August 2009 10:59:19 Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 11 August 2009 08:35:47 Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please pull from > > > > > > http://www.linuxtv.org/hg/~hverkuil/v4l-dvb-core2 for the > > > > > > following: > > > > > > > > > > > > - v4l: simplify v4l2_i2c_new_subdev and friends > > > > > > - v4l: remove video_register_device_index > > > > > > > > > > > > The first patch simplifies v4l2_i2c_new_subdev and removes > > > > > > v4l2_i2c_new_probed_subdev and v4l2_i2c_new_probed_subdev_addr. > > > > > > This was initially proposed for inclusion in 2.6.31 but that was > > > > > > considered too soon. I think it is now a good time to merge this > > > > > > so this will go into 2.6.32. > > > > > > > > > > > > The second patch removes the unused video_register_device_index > > > > > > function. This patch is part of a larger series of patches I'm > > > > > > working on to improve v4l2-dev.c. But since this patch is pretty > > > > > > straightforward I like to get this one in first. > > > > > > > > > > Mauro, > > > > > > > > > > Please disregard this pull request. I've found a serious bug that > > > > > needs to be resolved first. > > > > > > > > OK, that was a false alarm. It's working fine after all so it's safe > > > > to pull this tree. Sorry for the confusion. > > > > > > The patches look fine to me. Yet, I see two merge conflict issues: > > > 1) if a latter patch needs to touch at the subdev probing sequence to > > > fix a bug, it will conflict with this patch, meaning that we'll have > > > merge troubles on this tree and at my -git devel, linux-next and > > > linux-2.6; > > > 2) as Guennadi is converting soc_camera to v4l2 dev/subdev, this patch > > > may conflict with his patch series. > > > > > > Due to that, I prefer to keep holding it until the beginning of the > > > next merge window, since, if a merge conflict would rise, it would be > > > just at -hg, instead of having it at the 4 trees. > > > > I thought things were pretty stable by now since we reached -rc6. And we > > have seen no bugs at all with respect to the subdev API. The disadvantage > > of waiting that long is that this patch has had no testing in v4l-dvb but > > goes straight into the mainline. I personally prefer to have it in > > earlier so it gets a few weeks testing before the merge window opens. > > > > Anyway, that's just my opinion. > > > > In the meantime, can you at least merge the second patch (remove > > video_register_device_index)? I can make a new tree if you don't > > want to cherry-pick it. > > Hi Mauro, > > Do you want me to make a new tree, or can you cherry-pick? I would like to > prepare some more core cleanups to make the code more understandable, but > it's much easier to do that if this second patch is merged first. I did an effort to cleanup the patchwork patches on friday, since I wanted to merge everything else before this API change. There are still a few work there to be handled, but as far as I noticed, none will be affected by this series. Yet, I intend to handle the remaining ones before applying this series. The only pending work I'm aware of that could be affected are the Guennadi's patches. As we are already at -rc7, it is probably time to thing on merging this series. So, after receiving his series, I intend to merge this tree probably during this week. If you have any priority: high patch, please apply on another tree and ask me to pull Cheers, Mauro -- 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
