[linux-dvb] [PATCH] Multi protocol support (stage #1)
abraham.manu at gmail.com
Wed Jun 14 07:45:26 CEST 2006
Yeasah Pell wrote:
> 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?
Yes. Additionally the old one's would work exactly the same way, as it
used to do, for a predefined period of time.
>>> 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.
Will need the "official signature" from Johannes though. :-)
More information about the linux-dvb