On Sunday 13 September 2009 17:54:11 wk wrote: > Hans Verkuil schrieb: > > Hi all, > > > > I've started this as a new thread to prevent polluting the discussions of the > > media controller as a concept. > > > > First of all, I have no doubt that everything that you can do with an ioctl, > > you can also do with sysfs and vice versa. That's not the problem here. > > > > The problem is deciding which approach is the best. > > > > > > Is it really a good idea to create a dependency to some virtual file > system which may go away in future? > From time to time some of those seem to go away, for example devfs. > > Is it really unavoidable to have something in sysfs, something which is > really not possible with ioctls? > And do you really want to depend on sysfs developers? One other interesting question is: currently the V4L2 API is also used by BSD variants for their video drivers. Our V4L2 header is explicitly dual-licensed to allow this. I don't think that BSD has sysfs. So making the media controller sysfs-based only would make it very hard for them if they ever want to port drivers that rely on that to BSD. Yes, I know that strictly speaking we don't have to care about that, but it is yet another argument against the use of sysfs as far as I am concerned. Regards, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG Telecom -- 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
