On 12/03/2010 12:48 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 03 December 2010 08:56:27 Teemu Tuominen wrote:
On 12/02/2010 05:01 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 12/2/2010 6:19 AM, Teemu Tuominen wrote:
Hello,
Please excuse me if I haven't done my home work, but...
Why isn't kernel-headers made explicitly from the kernel project, even
though its patch-set is dealing with ABI ?
because that causes major issues with OBS rebuilds. kernel-headers
change causes glibc to rebuild (and then the OS). ... this would limit
the rate at which we can do kernel updates
Well, that's a fairly good reason.
I have pondered the issue with the few example headers we have with
V4L2/MediaController API changes. So, are we currently utilizing
backported drivers and stuff, but tend to think that kernel stays ABI
compatible with older upstream version ?
the other reason is that we ONLY want to ship the OFFICIAL ABI to
applications, not an "abi" that comes from random patches added to the
kernel.
2. request kernel committers to commit kernel-headers too (and
consider how this will stay in sync)
no to either;
the only request we'll take is "can you move kernel-headers to a new
upstream version"..
if you get your ABI change accepted by Linus and then into a release, we
can get it into kernel-headers.
Ok, so lets consider the particular case with V4L2 subdev and Media
Controller API. AFAIK all of the targeted devices containing camera are
expected to utilize those to provide camera FEA's. API's were accepted, but
we are talking about fairly new patches to them as well.
The API is still experimental and is thus not stable yet.
I assume the recent patches can be partly covered within adaptation
projects, but am afraid that we might fail to have a common ways to utilize
camera in 1.2 due this.
I'm not much experienced nor following the upstream process, so I ask
LaurentP to provide the version details.
I was targetting 2.6.38 to get the media controller patches in mainline, but
the review I got from the ALSA community will need a little time to be
integrated, so we might need to target 2.6.39 instead.
Anyway, we won't have the MC headers in the kernel-headers package in the near
future, so a temporary media-controller-headers package might be needed.
Sounds like a decent temporary solution. I can take such task and
provide the specific headers package along with upcoming
gst-plugins-camera through the n900 device adaptation. If its acceptable
way to go - Arjan ? Maybe we should keep the solution specific to Nokia
N900 images as long as needed, but I feel its necessity to gain focus
and joint forces around Meego camera subsystem contributors asap. Simply
because it seems possible in near future.
Thanks,
-Teemu
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-kernel
