Hans Verkuil wrote: > On Wednesday 21 July 2010 16:35:27 Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> The media_device structure abstracts functions common to all kind of >> media devices (v4l2, dvb, alsa, ...). It manages media entities and >> offers a userspace API to discover and configure the media device >> internal topology. >> >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/media-framework.txt | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/media/Makefile | 2 +- >> drivers/media/media-device.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/media/media-device.h | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 199 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/media-framework.txt >> create mode 100644 drivers/media/media-device.c >> create mode 100644 include/media/media-device.h >> > > <snip> > > As discussed on IRC: I would merge media-device and media-devnode. I see no > benefit in separating them at this time. I have to say I like the current separation of registration / node handling and the actual implementation, as in V4L2. There's more code to both files in the following patches. It think the result is easier to understand the way it is. You do have a point there that there's no need to separate them since media_devnode is only used in media_device, at the moment at least. Or is there a chance we would get different kind of control devices that would use media_devnode in the future? I don't see a clear need for such, though. Could media_devnode and media_device be combined without breaking this nice separation in the code too much? Regards, -- Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
