[linux-dvb] [PATCH] Multi protocol support (stage #1)

Yeasah Pell yeasah at schwide.com
Wed Jun 14 00:54:39 CEST 2006


Manu Abraham wrote:

> Yeasah Pell wrote:
>
>> Really all I'm trying to suggest is that once the new API is made 
>> available, every card should be accessible through it. 
>
>
> Yes, it will be that way. I think the confusion came in because i 
> mentioned the implementation of tuning algorithms, which need more 
> time to be implemented.
>
> Anyway, will keep that thing separate, since i found that to cause 
> confusion as well.


Ok, sorry about the confusion. I think I now see where I got lost in 
your original response. If I'm now understanding you correctly, then I 
would answer Alan's original question:

> Alan Nisota wrote:
>
>> While I was looking at the ver7 patch when I wrote that mail, I have
>> since looked at the rev7a version as well, and I dhave questions.  I
>> understand how to use the new API, but am unsure what is expected from
>> an application perspective.
>> Specifically, if the API is version 3.2, does that mean that all cards
>> can be accessed with the new DVBFE ioctls (which would make things
>> relatively nice, as an app needs to support only one or the other as
>> defined at compile-time), or does each driver need to be ported to use
>> the new API, in which case there needs to be some way to designate
>> which cards support the new drivers? 
>

With simply "all cards will be accessible through the new DVBFE ioctls." 
Right?

>
>> If that means having a translation layer in the short term (i.e. 
>> until all the drivers are updated), I think it might be a good idea 
>> -- unless of course it's going to be almost as much work as just 
>> updating all the old drivers, in which case it makes more sense to 
>> just do that. But I'm not really fond of the idea of a lengthy period 
>> of time wherein drivers slowly migrate from the old API to the new one.
>
>
> Regarding app. backward compatibility, we don't need a huge 
> translation, i will post those changes soon. But yet needed to know 
> whather the previous API changes were acceptable, waiting for JS's ACK 
> on that.
>

Johannes? Even if things may not be perfect at this point, can we call 
it good enough to move forward? It's been bounced about for a good long 
time now, and I'm not sure how much better it will get without actually 
getting some code into circulation.




More information about the linux-dvb mailing list