[linux-dvb] Re: [RFC] multi std silicon tuners and analog tuners
abraham.manu at gmail.com
Thu Apr 5 23:54:20 CEST 2007
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Qui, 2007-04-05 às 17:10 -0400, Michael Krufky escreveu:
>> It appears that I may have been misunderstood.
>> Your argument is completely valid, I only ask that nobody touch tda8290.c or
>> tda827x.c until Hartmut and I are done with our upcoming changes.
> It doesn't make sense touching the code right now, before we've agreed
> on the changes.
> There's just a point that worries me: Markus, Manu and you are coding
> different solutions for the API. We should focus our discussion at the
> API changes *then* coding the drivers. Otherwise, the discussion will
> just generate warm, since each one will defend his approach, according
> with his own foot and it would be really hard to have a common approach.
> My suggestion is to start the discussion from Markus RFC, since it is
> the first one who proposed an RFC on this subject, (his second approach
> is dated from Feb, 27). He sent the 3rd approach today.
> As it is an RFC, and provided that *all* keep the discussions at the
> highest possible technical level, not starting or answering to personal
> flames, I can see everyone collaborating on this and converging to a
> common sense.
As i said ..
"With the case of DVB, things are moving, ie not stagnant due to the
arrival/addition of new stuff, so that is also an important aspect in
deciding how to go about. A high maintenance path is not a viable option."
The reason being DVB is a fast moving commercial target. Linux/OSS just
barely tries to catch up.
I don't care what option is chosen (for the same reason had been
silent), but the above is extremely important. There are more things
important to DVB than just Hybrid/Analog device support alone.
> This is a good time to remind about good values.
> Happy Easter for all!
Wishing you all the same
More information about the linux-dvb