On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Jelle de Jong
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:46:40 +0100
>> "Markus Rechberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>> The last attempt was rejected because the patches were adding duplicate 
>>>> drivers rather than improving the existing ones.
>>>> In the same project, 2 drivers managing the same hardware is not correct.
>>>> Markus (or another people, why Markus may be the only person to do that?) 
>>>> should propose patches of the existing drivers, without breaking the 
>>>> v4l-dvb APIs.
>>>> - First, the tuners and video decoders modifications shall be merged since 
>>>> they are used by several existing drivers.
>>>> - Then the em28xx driver shall be improved.
>>>> And this is what Markus started (thanks for this initiative) but this is 
>>>> hard to spend time on these minor things while supporting problems because 
>>>> of being out-of-kernel.
>>>>
>>> In case of the cx25843 I discussed it with Hans Verkuil, there's more
>>> or less no option since it collides with the existing inkernel driver
>>> and disables support for other
>>> cx25843 drivers, so as for the kernel it should be merged to the
>>> existing one yes.
>>
>> The same kind of collision exists if we keep both the upstream and your 
>> version
>> of the em28xx driver. This is also true for xc5000 and xc3028 drivers.
>>
>>> The em28xx driver, the one in the kernel has taken a few patches from
>>> my repository, and it has some additional custom patches, it would
>>> make more sense to work those
>>> few patches into the new em28xx driver which is tested with most devices
>>>
>>> (compared with the driver which is in the kernel which is likely
>>> tested with 5-10% of the devices which are in the cardlist).
>>
>> The patches should be generated against the upstream driver, not against the
>> out-of-tree.
>>
>> You might use an strategy of first patching the out-of-tree, then patching 
>> back the
>> upstream. This may eventually be used as an intermediate step, but I suspect 
>> it
>> will just make things harder.
>>
>> Anyway, no matter what process used to generate the patchset, it should be
>> generated in a way that it won't cause regressions upstream, and submitted as
>> incremental patches properly describing what each patch of the series is 
>> doing
>> (and not just a diff <version a> <version b>).
>>
>>> As for some reasons why not to merge it back then:
>>> * the driver relied on reverse engineered code, which made some
>>> devices extremly hot (not even xc3028/xc3028L related). Wrong gpio
>>> settings also enable the device to draw more power and affect the
>>> signal strength for analog TV/dvb-t, those settings can be custom for
>>> every designed device. I have had one pinnacle device which had a
>>> slightly melted package because of that mess.
>>
>> The gpio logic is just a very few lines of code. A simple patch probably can
>> fix the issues.
>>
>>> There are additional em28xx based chipdrivers which only work with
>>> em28xx based devices (eg. videology cam).
>>
>> A patch adding videology cam support would add this functionality upstream.
>>
>>> The input layer actually fully works although I disabled it because it
>>> needs a redesign and shouldn't be exposed to userland like this, also
>>> the polling code shouldn't be used (linux timing causes
>>> alot trouble at low intervals - especially the deinitialization of
>>> such timers, I sent an email to the ML about a possible race condition
>>> in ir-kbd-i2c a couple of months ago.
>>> netBSD developers discovered that interrupt polling works fine even
>>> for remote controls. Practically since I worked alot with remote
>>> controls during the last half year returning keyboard input keys
>>> to userland is a mess, there was a discussion also with netbsd people
>>> about a more generic interface because the IR support of the device
>>> should be seen as RC5/RC6/NEC/.. protocol support
>>> and not as one interface where the device is bound to a certain remote
>>> and only supporting that remote control.
>>> (that's just the reason why IR support is disabled :)
>>
>> Since it is disabled, there's no sense on currently trying to merge your IR
>> code. This would be a regression.
>>
>>>> v4l-dvb people and Markus would be glad to see his drivers in the 
>>>> mainstream kernel.
>>>>
>>>>> I am going to ask for understanding of both the side of Markus that
>>>>> worked very hard on his code, and that of the upstream developers. There
>>>>> are both valid reasons on how they did there things.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we need a solution to get all the code back into the upstream
>>>>> project so it can go into the kernel project and eventually be delivered
>>>>> at the Linux distributions and all there users, so no custom compiling,
>>>>> custom package install are required and non transparent bug reports can
>>>>> be stopped.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible for an upstream developer to step forward and take on the
>>>>> task of merging the code of Markus back into mainstream, all questions
>>>>> on the code can be discuses on several mailing-list [2] of choice.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, I would say: "Make it so!" ;)
>>>>
>>>>> Current the situation is kind of a hold-of, the issues are not being
>>>>> discussed, the problem is not addressed, so no process is made and
>>>>> during this time users are suffering from non working nor good supported
>>>>> devices for there hybrid dvb-t/analog broadcast experiences under Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope this lead to a productive discussion that will get the code to
>>>>> the end users through there main distribution systems.
>>>>>
>>>> I hope so, just to stop these useless discussions that do not discuss on 
>>>> patches.
>>>>
>>> the code is there :-)
>>
>> If you are comfortable of having people converting your code on incremental
>> patches and submitting upstream, please stop making personal attacks to the
>> ones that are actually doing that ;)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mauro
>
> Time has past since my first mail on this subject, and some small steps
> have been made towards integrating the em28xx into the mainstream kernel.
>
> I first want to state that I have not taken any side in the underneath
> issue. I strongly advice to resolve the issues as soon as possible and
> maybe take a closer look at the action of the key persons involved.
>
> I have reasons to be very very concerned! I regularly talk with Markus
> through IRC. And I got the feeling he is frustrated about the way things
> have gone in the past. If I understand correctly Mauro the current
> maintainer started working on linux-tv project around the same time
> Markus did and is now kind of dictating what goes into mainstream code.
>
> Also Markus indicated Mauro took code that Markus developed and did not
> follow the GPL rules of providing the copyright and credits to Markus.
> So Mauro is "stealing" Markus work, this has made Markus slowly turn
> against gpl licensing and Linux development policies.
>

this is no issue at all, as already mentioned.

> It may have gotten so worse, that Markus currently development is going
> to be closed source! Markus is working on an analog and dvb GTK+ viewer
> for Linux that will now be mostly released close source. Because Markus
> is sick of his code being taken and not getting the credits for his hard
> work, so he decided close source development will be an solution that
> works for him.
>
> I am not going into an ethical discussion about the actions made. But I
> will say I would hate to see this escalating further and result in a
> rejection of a possible productive and vendor supported software
> developer that would have been able to release his work under gpl and
> contribute to the free software community.
>
> I personally not use non free sofware, so if this continues the current
> patch I will be unable to use the future work of Markus, and there are
> still a lot of issues with using dvb and analog systems under linux....
>
> Hope this reopens the discussion and helps to resolve the above issues
> in a civilized way without hurting the free software community or
> creating poisonous people in the community.
>

I'm too busy especially right now to deal with anything beside my work...

Markus

_______________________________________________
Em28xx mailing list
[email protected]
http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx

Reply via email to