[linux-dvb] DVB-S2 / Multiproto and future modulation support
P. van Gaans
w3ird_n3rd at gmx.net
Fri Aug 29 21:20:34 CEST 2008
On 08/29/2008 08:29 PM, Steven Toth wrote:
> Regarding the multiproto situation:
> A number of developers, maintainers and users are unhappy with the
> multiproto situation, actually they've been unhappy for a considerable
> amount of time. The linuxtv developer community (to some degree) is seen
> as a joke and a bunch in-fighting people. Multiproto is a great
> demonstration of this.  The multiproto project has gone too far, for
> too long and no longer has any credibility in the eyes of many people.
> In response, a number developers have agreed that "enough is enough" and
> "it's time to take a new direction", for these developers the technical,
> political and personal cost of multiproto is too high. These developers
> have decided to make an announcement.
> Mauro Chehab, Michael Krufky, Patrick Boettcher and myself are hereby
> announcing that we no longer support multiproto and are forming a
> smaller dedicated project group which is focusing on adding next
> generation S2/ISDB-T/DVB-H/DVB-T2/DVB-SH support to the kernel through a
> different and simpler API.
> Basic patches and demo code for this API is currently available here.
> Does it even work? Yes
> Is this new API complete? No
> Is it perfect? No, we've already had feedback on structural and
> namingspace changes that people would like to see.
> Does it have bugs? Of course, we have a list of things we already know
> we want to fix.
> but ...
> Is the new approach flexible? Yes, we're moving away from passing fixed
> modulation structures into the kernel.
> Can we add to it without breaking the future ABI when unforseen
> modulations types occur? Yes
> Does it preserve backwards compatibility? Yes
> Importantly, is the overall direction correct? Yes
> Does it impact existing frontend drivers? No.
> What's the impact to dvb-core? Small.
> What's the impact to application developers? None, unless an application
> developer wants to support the new standards - binary compatibility!
> We want feedback and we want progress, we aim to achieve it.
> Importantly, this project group seeks your support.
> If you also feel frustrated by the multiproto situation and agree in
> principle with this new approach, and the overall direction of the API
> changes, then we welcome you and ask you to help us.
> Growing the list of supporting names by 100%, and allowing us to publish
> your name on the public mailing list, would show the non-maintainer
> development community that we recognize the problem and we're taking
> steps to correct the problem. We want to make LinuxTV a perfect platform
> for S2, ISDB-T and other advanced modulation types, without using the
> multiproto patches.
> We're not asking you for technical help, although we'd like that :) ,
> we're just asking for your encouragement to move away from multiproto.
> If you feel that you want to support our movement then please help us by
> acking this email.
> Regards - Steve, Mike, Patrick and Mauro.
> Acked-by: Patrick Boettcher <pb at linuxtv.org>
> Acked-by: Michael Krufky <mkrufky at linuxtv.org>
> Acked-by: Steven Toth <stoth at linuxtv.org>
> Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab at infradead.org>
> * . Rather than point out the issues with multiproto here, take a
> look at the patches and/or read the comments on the mailing lists.
> linux-dvb mailing list
> linux-dvb at linuxtv.org
It's pretty clear to me multiproto is likely never going to make it to
the kernel. And the things you sum up here sound good. I haven't used
multiproto much, and I understood some parts of it are a pain from
dev-POV. And stuff that doesn't go in-kernel gets little support from
Also, if we would NOT accept the solution you propose now, I see
linux-DVB getting killed off altogether, more (other) developers working
on multiproto and eventually the (atm messy) multiproto project (or some
spinoff) going in-kernel, replacing linux-DVB.
That's radical. I'm not even sure that's possible. But I think it should
be said it's an alternative.
Since you are the current linux-DVB developers and you support this new
solution, I'll support you and am willing to abandon multiproto (haven't
used it much anyway). On the other hand: if more people prefer
multiproto and it grows seriously and goes in-kernel (after which
enduser apps would start supporting it), I'll install that on my
machine. In short, the most important thing to me, an enduser: I want a
solution that for now brings me DVB-S2 and will later on be capable of
supporting new standards.
For now, I am willing to support this new solution. Both because you
support and, and because it sounds good. Being an ignorant enduser I
can't judge much other things.
Acked-by: P. van Gaans (please no unsolicited bulk mail)
More information about the linux-dvb