On Friday 23 July 2004 17:48, Holger Waechtler wrote:
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
Holger Waechtler wrote:
one more point came to my mind: the 2.6 driver API provides a clean way to upload demod firmware files, no need for dirty hacks and workarounds and direct access of internal dvb_adapter or i2c_adapter struct members.
That's the whole point why we want to use kernel-I2C. We get firmware loading (and the whole sysfs foobar) for free. Well, so I thought...
why insert an abstraction layer inbetween that does not provides any additional functionality, needs special care because of distributed locking, has a more complicated-to-use API and just hides functionality that could get used easier by accessing the cleaner lower-level API directly?
just my 2¢,
Holger
I'm still wondering if I should complete the current stuff, or just reverse all changes...
that probably depends on the general plans regarding the current CVS tree and the schedule for the v4 API.
If v4 is to be pushed to the public soonish then any work in the old tree despite bugfixes and minor cosmetic changes is probably not worth the efforts.
any opinions? Johannes, what's the current state of the v4 tree? Is it ready for a call to the public to port all remaining drivers and to clean the internal infrastructure?
Holger
