Kenneth Aafløy wrote:
well... a clean and convinient API can get measured by the number of lines of code that is required to implement the code using it, not?On Tuesday 20 July 2004 21:08, Holger Waechtler wrote:well -- I still can't see the deep reason for this, the recent patches usually added ~20-100 lines of code complexity to each file, so where is the point of "getting rid" of something?
There wasn't that much complexity added was there? The bulk of the patches was replacing dvb_i2c with i2c_adapter.
it's free code. Everyone who thinks that things need to get done can apply the patches. In an open development you'll always encounter many different opinions about how things should get done and at the end freedom of thoughts is part of the definition of free life, isn't it? It's up to the one who does the job to decide how he will do it.wouldn't it be better to replace the from-scratch list-and-device handling in dvb_i2c.[hc] by the driver/bus infrastructure in 2.6 that provides the same functionality and to rename every dvb_i2c occurence by dvb_uC in order to mirror the additional flexibility of this code?
I'm not sure anymore..does anyone else have an oppinion on this before I do the rest of the conversions?