Re: [PATCH] lirc: remove backwards compatibility macro obfuscation (Was: Free Linux Driver Development!)
Pekka Enberg wrote: On 2/2/07, Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pekka, it would be better if you could sort out most of the basic issues with lirc directly with the developers of lirc and then prepare a complete patch series and post that to lkml. Incrementally adding one driver after another. Posting patches to non-existent sources to lkml is pointless. First create a discussion base, please. What discussion base? You need to get rid of the cruft anyway and now you have patch to do that. I am not volunteering to sort out _all_ the issues. I really really welcome your efforts - no doubt. I wanted to express that the patches you posted are simply not suitable for lkml discussion as there was no full patchset for lirc for review posted, prior to your patches. Normal process for new features (and lirc is a new feature so far lkml is concerned) is like (as I understand it): 1. post full patchset 2. duck 3. receive criticism & patches 4. integrate results from 3 5. goto 1 You started at 3. It would be better to start with the whole picture at 1. I hope I made myself clearer now. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] lirc: remove backwards compatibility macro obfuscation (Was: Free Linux Driver Development!)
On 2/2/07, Jan Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pekka, it would be better if you could sort out most of the basic issues with lirc directly with the developers of lirc and then prepare a complete patch series and post that to lkml. Incrementally adding one driver after another. Posting patches to non-existent sources to lkml is pointless. First create a discussion base, please. What discussion base? You need to get rid of the cruft anyway and now you have patch to do that. I am not volunteering to sort out _all_ the issues. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] lirc: remove backwards compatibility macro obfuscation (Was: Free Linux Driver Development!)
Pekka J Enberg wrote: From: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 02 Feb 2007 05:54:00 +0100, Christoph Bartelmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just made clear that I don't have the time to do the merging of LIRC drivers to the kernel myself. In fact a lot of work still needs to be done before LIRC drivers are ready to be included into the kernel. [snip] On 02 Feb 2007 05:54:00 +0100, Christoph Bartelmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Any help welcome. Here's a start. You really should run Lindent on the sources too. Pekka, it would be better if you could sort out most of the basic issues with lirc directly with the developers of lirc and then prepare a complete patch series and post that to lkml. Incrementally adding one driver after another. Posting patches to non-existent sources to lkml is pointless. First create a discussion base, please. Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- drivers/lirc_atiusb/lirc_atiusb.c | 102 - drivers/lirc_bt829/lirc_bt829.c |9 - You might want to fix the directory structure first and check which drivers already exist in-tree. Also, as Vincent noted, most drivers have to be converted to use the input layer first. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] lirc: remove backwards compatibility macro obfuscation (Was: Free Linux Driver Development!)
On 2/2/07, Pekka J Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] drivers/lirc_atiusb/lirc_atiusb.c | 102 - ^^ I may be mistaken, but the lirc_atiusb module looks redondant with the driver already in drivers/usb/input/ati_remote.c. Moreover, I was under the impression that the input layer was currently considered the "right way" to implement the kernel side lirc needs (AFAICT the lircd daemon is already able to handle events from the input layer). So I'm wondering : in view of a kernel merge, wouldn't it be better for the lirc drivers to be ported to the input layer (linux-input ML in cc:) ? Regards, Vincent - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] lirc: remove backwards compatibility macro obfuscation (Was: Free Linux Driver Development!)
On 2/2/07, Pekka J Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] drivers/lirc_atiusb/lirc_atiusb.c | 102 - ^^ I may be mistaken, but the lirc_atiusb module looks redondant with the driver already in drivers/usb/input/ati_remote.c. Moreover, I was under the impression that the input layer was currently considered the right way to implement the kernel side lirc needs (AFAICT the lircd daemon is already able to handle events from the input layer). So I'm wondering : in view of a kernel merge, wouldn't it be better for the lirc drivers to be ported to the input layer (linux-input ML in cc:) ? Regards, Vincent - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] lirc: remove backwards compatibility macro obfuscation (Was: Free Linux Driver Development!)
Pekka J Enberg wrote: From: Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 02 Feb 2007 05:54:00 +0100, Christoph Bartelmus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just made clear that I don't have the time to do the merging of LIRC drivers to the kernel myself. In fact a lot of work still needs to be done before LIRC drivers are ready to be included into the kernel. [snip] On 02 Feb 2007 05:54:00 +0100, Christoph Bartelmus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any help welcome. Here's a start. You really should run Lindent on the sources too. Pekka, it would be better if you could sort out most of the basic issues with lirc directly with the developers of lirc and then prepare a complete patch series and post that to lkml. Incrementally adding one driver after another. Posting patches to non-existent sources to lkml is pointless. First create a discussion base, please. Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- drivers/lirc_atiusb/lirc_atiusb.c | 102 - drivers/lirc_bt829/lirc_bt829.c |9 - You might want to fix the directory structure first and check which drivers already exist in-tree. Also, as Vincent noted, most drivers have to be converted to use the input layer first. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] lirc: remove backwards compatibility macro obfuscation (Was: Free Linux Driver Development!)
On 2/2/07, Jan Dittmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pekka, it would be better if you could sort out most of the basic issues with lirc directly with the developers of lirc and then prepare a complete patch series and post that to lkml. Incrementally adding one driver after another. Posting patches to non-existent sources to lkml is pointless. First create a discussion base, please. What discussion base? You need to get rid of the cruft anyway and now you have patch to do that. I am not volunteering to sort out _all_ the issues. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] lirc: remove backwards compatibility macro obfuscation (Was: Free Linux Driver Development!)
Pekka Enberg wrote: On 2/2/07, Jan Dittmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pekka, it would be better if you could sort out most of the basic issues with lirc directly with the developers of lirc and then prepare a complete patch series and post that to lkml. Incrementally adding one driver after another. Posting patches to non-existent sources to lkml is pointless. First create a discussion base, please. What discussion base? You need to get rid of the cruft anyway and now you have patch to do that. I am not volunteering to sort out _all_ the issues. I really really welcome your efforts - no doubt. I wanted to express that the patches you posted are simply not suitable for lkml discussion as there was no full patchset for lirc for review posted, prior to your patches. Normal process for new features (and lirc is a new feature so far lkml is concerned) is like (as I understand it): 1. post full patchset 2. duck 3. receive criticism patches 4. integrate results from 3 5. goto 1 You started at 3. It would be better to start with the whole picture at 1. I hope I made myself clearer now. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
