Dear Antti, Mauro & others, We don't want to flood the mailing lists with dirts. It is regretful to send this kind of email, however as we just received a "war declaration" from Tsukada Akihiro, it is better to postpone delivering PT3 driver to the main kernel tree. A series proof of facts follow. Thanks again for your appreciation. Bud @ AreMa Inc. official contacts: +81 50 5552 1666 info@xxxxxx 2014-10-04 16:16 GMT+09:00 AreMa Inc. <info@xxxxxx>: > Hi Mauro, > > The biggest reason is that, the submitted driver, also published at > https://github.com/knight-rider/ptx/tree/master/pt3_dvb > is well proven to be running smoothly and already used by Japanese community > for more than a year (i.e. de facto standard) without any major issues. > > The second is more about his personal reasons in violating the rules > and we don't want to comment further unless there is no response from him > within a week. > > Many patches will follow. > > Thanks again for your info. > Regards > -Bud > > 2014-10-03 19:52 GMT+09:00 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> Em Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:45:19 +0900 >> "AreMa Inc." <info@xxxxxx> escreveu: >> >>> Mauro & Antti >>> >>> Please drop & replace Tsukada's PT3 patches. >> >> It doesn't work like that. We don't simply drop a driver and replace by >> some other one. >> >> The way most open source project works with regards to patch reviewing >> process work is via lazy consensus. The maintainer could, of course, >> override it, but this is only done on exceptional cases and when there >> is a strong reason for doing that. >> >> The lazy consensus works like that: someone publish a patch at a public >> mailing list. During a reasonable amount of time, everybody that >> participates at the community can review the patch, and submit their >> review publicly. After that time, it is assumed that everybody was happy >> with the patch. The maintainers will then take it and merge. >> >> The PT3 patches are floating around for at least 2 merge windows, with is >> a more than reasonable time. There were requests to change some bad things >> there, to split the big patches into a series of patches, etc. All of them >> were satisfied. So, as everybody lazily agreed with the code, it got merged. >> >> In other words, if you had anything against the merge of the PT3 driver, >> you should have manifested before the merge during the ~2 months that this >> was discussed, and not after that. >> >> Yet, if the driver is not fully functional or if it have some issues, we do >> accept and we do want incremental patches fixing it. Of course, those changes >> should be properly described. The patch descriptions should answer three >> questions: >> - What each patch is doing; >> - Why that patch is needed; >> - How the change was done. >> >> As Antti stated, those incremental patches should be done with one logical >> change per patch. That will allow us to better understand what's happening. >> >> In other words, you could, for example, send us a patch inside a series that >> would be doing (from your previous patch): >> - lightweight & yet precise CNR calculus >> >> Such patch should look like: >> >> Subject: pt3: improve and cleanup CNR calculus >> From: your real name <your@email> >> >> The current code uses a too complex logic to do CNR calculus. >> Simplify the logic by doing .... >> That keeps the CNR calculus precise, but makes the calculus >> (quicker|easier to read|...). >> >> Signed-off-by: your real name <your@email> >> >> Please read what's written on our Wiki for more details, at: >> http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Developer_Section >> Starting with: >> http://linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_Submitting_Patches >> >>> There are too many weird & violating codes in it. >> >> You need to provide us a way more detailed descriptions than just the >> above statement, as the above example >> >> E. g.: What is weird and where? What's being violated and where? What >> you're proposing to solve it? >> >> Regards, >> Mauro >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Bud >>> >>> >>> 2014-10-03 13:54 GMT+09:00 Antti Palosaari <crope@xxxxxx>: >>> > On 10/02/2014 09:49 PM, Буди Романто, AreMa Inc wrote: >>> >> >>> >> DVB driver for Earthsoft PT3 PCIE ISDB-S/T receiver >>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> >> >>> >> Status: stable >>> >> >>> >> Changes: >>> >> - demod & tuners converted to I2C binding model >>> >> - i586 & x86_64 clean compile >>> >> - lightweight & yet precise CNR calculus >>> >> - raw CNR (DVBv3) >>> >> - DVBv5 CNR @ 0.0001 dB (ref: include/uapi/linux/dvb/frontend.h, not >>> >> 1/1000 dB!) >>> >> - removed (unused?) tuner's *_release() >>> >> - demod/tuner binding: pt3_unregister_subdev(), pt3_unregister_subdev() >>> >> - some cleanups >>> > >>> > >>> > These drivers are already committed, like you have noticed. There is surely >>> > a lot of issues that could be improved, but it cannot be done by big patch >>> > which replaces everything. You need to just take one issue at the time, >>> > fix/improve it, send patch to mailing list for review. One patch per one >>> > logical change. >>> > >>> > regards >>> > Antti >>> > >>> > -- >>> > http://palosaari.fi/ -- 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
