On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Saturday, November 26, 2011 06:55:52 Oliver Endriss wrote: >> On Friday 25 November 2011 23:06:34 Andreas Oberritter wrote: >> > On 25.11.2011 17:51, Manu Abraham wrote: >> > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab >> > > <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> Em 25-11-2011 14:03, Andreas Oberritter escreveu: >> > >>> On 25.11.2011 16:38, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> > >>>> Em 25-11-2011 12:41, Andreas Oberritter escreveu: >> > >>>>> On 25.11.2011 14:48, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> > >>>>>> If your complain is about the removal of audio.h, video.h >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> We're back on topic, thank you! >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>>> and osd.h, then my proposal is >> > >>>>>> to keep it there, writing a text that they are part of a deprecated API, >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> That's exactly what I proposed. Well, you shouldn't write "deprecated", >> > >>>>> because it's not. Just explain - inside this text - when V4L2 should be >> > >>>>> preferred over DVB. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> It is deprecated, as the API is not growing to fulfill today's needs, and >> > >>>> no patches adding new stuff to it to it will be accepted anymore. >> > >>> >> > >>> Haha, nice one. "It doesn't grow because I don't allow it to." Great! >> > >> >> > >> No. It didn't grow because nobody cared with it for years: >> > >> >> > >> Since 2.6.12-rc2 (start of git history), no changes ever happened at osd.h. >> > >> >> > >> Excluding Hans changes for using it on a pure V4L device, and other trivial >> > >> patches not related to API changes, the last API change on audio.h and video.h >> > >> was this patch: >> > >> commit f05cce863fa399dd79c5aa3896d608b8b86d8030 >> > >> Author: Andreas Oberritter <obi@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> Date: Mon Feb 27 00:09:00 2006 -0300 >> > >> >> > >> V4L/DVB (3375): Add AUDIO_GET_PTS and VIDEO_GET_PTS ioctls >> > >> >> > >> (yet not used on any upstream driver) >> > >> >> > >> An then: >> > >> commit 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 >> > >> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> Date: Sat Apr 16 15:20:36 2005 -0700 >> > >> >> > >> Linux-2.6.12-rc2 >> > >> >> > >> No changes adding support for any in-kernel driver were ever added there. >> > >> >> > >> So, it didn't grow over the last 5 or 6 years because nobody submitted >> > >> driver patches requiring new things or _even_ using it. >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>>>>> but keeping >> > >>>>>> the rest of the patches >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Which ones? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> V4L2, ivtv and DocBook patches. >> > >>> >> > >>> Fine. >> > >>> >> > >>>>>> and not accepting anymore any submission using them >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Why? First you complain about missing users and then don't want to allow >> > >>>>> any new ones. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I didn't complain about missing users. What I've said is that, between a >> > >>>> one-user API and broad used APIs like ALSA and V4L2, the choice is to freeze >> > >>>> the one-user API and mark it as deprecated. >> > >>> >> > >>> Your assumtion about only one user still isn't true. >> > >>> >> > >>>> Also, today's needs are properly already covered by V4L/ALSA/MC/subdev. >> > >>>> It is easier to add what's missing there for DVB than to work the other >> > >>>> way around, and deprecate V4L2/ALSA/MC/subdev. >> > >>> >> > >>> Yes. Please! Add it! But leave the DVB API alone! >> > >>> >> > >>>>>> , removing >> > >>>>>> the ioctl's that aren't used by av7110 from them. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> That's just stupid. I can easily provide a list of used and valuable >> > >>>>> ioctls, which need to remain present in order to not break userspace >> > >>>>> applications. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Those ioctl's aren't used by any Kernel driver, and not even documented. >> > >>>> So, why to keep/maintain them? >> > >>> >> > >>> If you already deprecated it, why bother deleting random stuff from it >> > >>> that people are using? >> > >>> >> > >>> There's a difference in keeping and maintaining something. You don't >> > >>> need to maintain ioctls that haven't changed in years. Deleting >> > >>> something is more work than letting it there to be used by those who >> > >>> want to. >> > >> >> > >> Ok. Let's just keep the headers as is, just adding a comment that it is now >> > >> considered superseded. >> > >> > Thank you! This is a step into the right direction. >> > >> > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superseded >> > > >> > > to set aside or cause to be set aside as void, useless, or obsolete, usually >> > > in favor of something mentioned; make obsolete: They superseded the >> > > old statute with a new one. >> > > >> > > No, that's not acceptable. New DVB devices as they come will make use >> > > of the API and API changes might be applied. >> > >> > Honestly, I think we all should accept this proposal and just hope that >> > the comment is going to be written objectively. >> >> 'Hoping' is not enough for me anymore. I am deeply disappointed. >> Mauro and Hans have severely damaged my trust, that v4ldvb APIs are >> stable in Linux, and how things are handled in this project. >> >> So I request a public statement from the subsystem maintainer that >> 1. The DVB Decoder API will not be removed. >> 2. It can be updated if required (e.g. adding a missing function). >> 3. New drivers are allowed to use this architecture. >> 4. These driver will be accepted, if they follow the kernel standards. >> >> The reason is simple: I need to know, whether this project is still >> worth investing some time, or it is better to do something else. > > 1) There are two APIs that do the same thing: the DVB decoder API and the > V4L2 API. > 2) That's bad because it confuses driver developers and application developers > who have to support *two* APIs to do the same thing. > 3) The DVB decoder API is used in only one DVB driver (av7110), and in one > V4L2 driver (ivtv). The latter is easily converted to V4L2 which leaves only > one driver, av7110. > 4) A decoder API has nothing to do with DVB as a standard, it simply takes > the output of the DVB part of the hardware and decodes it to the output. > That's basic V4L2 functionality. It does, with newer scrambling systems, the decoder is tightly tied to the CA system(s) associated. According to the CI+ specification: "It is mandatory for the Application MMI to provide limited control over the MPEG decoders which enable the broadcast video and audio of the current service to be presented, additionally a full frame I-frame may be used to provide rich graphics backgrounds. The MMI Application may deny the application MMI control of the MPEG decoder if a resource conflict results." What you are talking about is FTA decoders which don't have any scrambling control, but almost all newer DVB decoders supporting CI+ work that way. If you look at any new digital TV/service, it comes with CI+ and many providers switching over. Because of a wrong decision, users cannot be denied using the same. -- 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
