On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Oliver Endriss <o.endr...@gmx.de> 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 >> > <mche...@redhat.com> 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 <o...@linuxtv.org> >> >> 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 <torva...@ppc970.osdl.org> >> >> 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. >
I for one, share the same thoughts as Oliver. Mauro has always been too clever with words, to play politics and hence my lack of trust in Mauro. So, I request a statement from Mauro just as Oliver stated. +1 Regards, Manu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
