Andreas Oberritter writes: > >> On 03/10/2011 04:29 PM, Issa Gorissen wrote: > > Now, according to Mauro comments, he has put this code into staging because of > > the usage of sec0 name for a cam device. > > > > Please comment on Oliver's explanations from this thread > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg26901.html > > Oliver explained that he's not going to put work into this driver, > because he's not using it. > > Until now, I haven't heard any reasons for just adding another device > node other than it being easier than defining a proper interface. The > fact that a solution "just works as is" is not sufficient to move a > driver from staging. IMO the CI driver should not have been included at > all in its current shape. Unless you want to move the writing to/reading from the CI module into ioctls of the ci device you need another node. Even nicer would be having the control messages moved to ioctls and the TS IO in read/write of ci, but this would break the old interface. What kind of proper interface were you thinking about? Regarding usage of dvr/demux mentioned in the linked thread above, this would add major overhead and lots more nodes. You would need dvr0/demux0 for output and dvr1/demux1 for input and both would PID-filter the stream yet again although it probably already was when being read from the demux or dvr device belonging to the tuner. Regards, Ralph -- 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
