On 24.11.2011 19:25, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em 24-11-2011 16:07, Andreas Oberritter escreveu:
>> On 24.11.2011 18:58, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> Em 24-11-2011 15:51, Andreas Oberritter escreveu:
>>>> On 24.11.2011 18:44, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 24, 2011 18:08:05 Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>>>>>> Don't break existing Userspace APIs for no reason! It's OK to add the
>>>>>> new API, but - pretty please - don't just blindly remove audio.h and
>>>>>> video.h. They are in use since many years by av7110, out-of-tree drivers
>>>>>> *and more importantly* by applications. Yes, I know, you'd like to see
>>>>>> those out-of-tree drivers merged, but it isn't possible for many
>>>>>> reasons. And even if they were merged, you'd say "Port them and your
>>>>>> apps to V4L". No! That's not an option.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not breaking anything. All apps will still work.
>>>>>
>>>>> One option (and it depends on whether people like it or not) is to have
>>>>> audio.h, video.h and osd.h just include av7110.h and add a #warning
>>>>> that these headers need to be replaced by the new av7110.h.
>>>>>
>>>>> And really remove them at some point in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the important thing to realize is that the ABI hasn't changed (unless
>>>>> I made a mistake somewhere).
>>>>
>>>> So why don't you just leave the headers where they are and add a notice
>>>> about the new V4L API as a comment?
>>>>
>>>> What you proposed breaks compilation. If you add a warning, it breaks
>>>> compilation for programs compiled with -Werror. Both are regressions.
>>>
>>> I don't mind doing it for 3.3 kernel, and add a note at
>>> Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt that the
>>> headers will go away on 3.4. This should give distributions
>>> and app developers enough time to prevent build failures, and
>>> prepare for the upcoming changes.
>>
>> Are you serious?
>>
>> Breaking things that worked well for many years - for an artificially
>> invented reason - is so annoying, I can't even find the words to express
>> how much this sucks.
>
> Andreas,
>
> All the in-kernel API's are there to support in-kernel drivers.
>
> Out of tree drivers can do whatever they want. As you likely know, several STB
> vendors have their own API's.
>
> Some use some variants of DVBv3 or DVBv5, and some use their own proprietary
> API's, that are even incompatible with DVB (and some even provide both).
>
> Even the ones that use DVBv3 (or v5) have their own implementation that diverges
> from the upstream one.
>
> Provided that such vendors don't violate the Kernel GPLv2 license where it applies,
> they're free do do whatever they want, forking the DVB API, or creating their own
> stacks.
You're encouraging people to do their own stuff instead of using and
contributing to a common API?
Anyway, you're talking about the DVB API as a whole, which of course
diverges a little bit from upstream in every implementation, because
patches to enhance the API are generally rejected if no in-kernel driver
uses the new function/flag/whatever at the time of its introduction. I
would have submitted many more API enhancements in the past, if you
wouldn't force that strict policy. Instead I usually have to wait until
another developer does the same job and then merge our work.
On the other hand, S2API was merged upstream with many unused "DTV_xxx"
commands and unused structs in the public header, being incomplete at
the same time (e.g. missing DiSEqC support and signal quality
measurements functions).
> So, keeping the in-kernel unused ioctl's don't bring any real benefit, as vendors
> can still do their forks, and applications designed to work with those hardware
> need to support the vendor's stack.
Can you please list all unused ioctls? As you know, av7110 uses some of
them and Manu is currently developing another open source driver using
the audio and video APIs. Please don't pretend that all ioctls are
unused to justify a removal of the whole API.
> On the other hand, keeping an outdated API that doesn't fit well for the vendors
> that want to upstream their STB drivers is bad, as it creates confusion for
> them, and prevents innovation, as they may try to workaround on the limitation of
> an API designed for the first generation DVB standards.
Can you elaborate which parts of the current generation DVB standards
limit the use of the audio and video API, apart from the missing video
codec flags, which were sent to the mailing list as a patch in 2006?
As already said in another mail today, a comment explaining the
existence and benefits of the V4L video decoder API at the top of
linux/dvb/{audio,video}.h would stop the confusion you're talking about.
Btw.: How does V4l replace osd.h and audio.h? I know that osd.h has been
deprecated for many years, but all reasoning I've heard in this thread
until now was that V4L was superior to the DVB video decoder API.
> That's what Hans patches are addressing.
>
> If you have a better approach, feel free to suggest it, provided that, at the end,
> the API that aren't used by non-legacy drivers are removed (or moved to driver's
> specific ioctl's).
OK. Can we agree on waiting for Manu's "non-legacy" driver to get
merged? After that we can remove unused ioctls - and only those. I
assume that "legacy" in your sentence means "unable to decode H.264",
which is a little bit odd, considering that large amounts of SDTV STBs
are still being sold worldwide and considering that analogue TV is still
being used in more than a handful of locations.
Regards,
Andreas
--
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
