subject:"\[linux\-dvb\] DST\/BT878 module customization \(.. was\: Critical points about ...\)"

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Manu Abraham

Trent Piepho wrote:

> This is not correct.  The dvb_attach() system has no assumption that it will
> be used for a front-end device.  There are already users which are not
> front-ends, such as tuners or lnb supply control chips, 

SEC (aka Satellite Equipment Control) is a part of the frontend.

> 
> So as maintainer you are declaring that no changes of any kind are permitted?

Please do take a look at the changesets whether it is as you say.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Trent Piepho

On Wed, 2 May 2007, Manu Abraham wrote:
> > I've been aware of the problem with dst not fully using the dvb 
> > customization
> > systems(*) for a long time.  It came up when dvb_attach() et al were first
> > being integrated, well before any rejected patches or strongly worded emails
> > or whatever from certain people that I'm aware of.
> >
>
> Well, your understanding of the device is quite limited and hence your
> comments and patches.

Manu, have you actually looked at the patch?  It seems like you are just
rejecting everything that has anything to do with dst out of hand.

Can you point to any line of code there, and say what it breaks or what it
will make impossible?

> These features are not the characteristics of a DVB Frontend. Here there
> is a DVB frontend like the normal ones which is hidden behind another
> pseudo bridge (So you don't have *any* access to the frontend at large)

Again, did you actually look at the patch?  I never so much as used the
word frontend to describe the dst.  I didn't change the operation of the
dst in any way.  I didn't move it to a new place in the framework.

The bt8xx driver talks to the dst module via the dvb_frontend object, my
patch has nothing to do with this.  It is a simple patch for simple
programming issues and nothing to do with these larger issues you bring up.

> I would think that it would be *extremely* rude for a person to send in
> patches for a device that which you don't understand at all, when it is
> for limiting the capability of the said device

Is the problem that there is a bug in my patch?  Or is your problem that I
was rude in submitting any patch at all that had anything to do with your
code?  Do you feel that this part of the Linux kernel is owned by you, and
that no one else should be permitted to have anything to do with it?

> > (*) There are two customization/dependency control systems in DVB.  One is
> > dvb_attach(), the other is DVB_FE_CUSTOMISE.  They are not two entirely
> > separate systems, but overlap in their design a great deal.
>
> Here we have the attach method attaching different objects, but
> basically it can be handled for the frontend devices only (and that too
> that share a very common trait, in this case, frontends are coupled
> using the i2c bus) and not for other devices. Situation changes when you
> use another interface such as SPI, where the interface is not well defined.

This is not correct.  The dvb_attach() system has no assumption that it will
be used for a front-end device.  There are already users which are not
front-ends, such as tuners or lnb supply control chips, and yes, dst, which
will all know very well is not a frontend.

It also has nothing do with the i2c.  The attached device could be connected
in any way.  I plan to add dvb_attach() support for the cx88 secondary i2c bus
driver (aka vp3054), and that isn't even a different chip.

> > This design means the actual hard link between different drivers is limited 
> > to
> > each driver's single attach function (**).  By breaking this one link, we 
> > can
> > control which drivers must be loaded or linked to only those necessary or
> > wanted.  dvb_attach() and DVB_FE_CUSTOMISE are two different ways of
> > controlling these links.
>
> dvb_attach will have to go away for the DST. It doesn't work for the
> mentioned reasons that it is just pushing the device to a corner as a
> DVB frontend whereas it is not a DVB Frontend at all.

The dst is already using dvb_attach()!  I'm not changing that at all.

> being the author and maintainer of dst/dst_ca and maintainer of
> dvb-bt8xx, i NACK this change

Can one become a maintainer just be declaring ones self to be so?  Or is there
an expectation that a maintainer will in fact, maintain.  That is to say,
address concerns in a timely fashion, review patches and work in good faith to
resolve problems with said patches.

> What i would like to do is like this: Have the current state frozen as
> it is,

So as maintainer you are declaring that no changes of any kind are permitted?
That is to say, the code should become frozen, un-fixed and un-updated, in
other words, _unmaintained_.

How can you have it both ways, that you are the maintainer and that it should
be unmaintained?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Uwe Bugla


 Original-Nachricht 
Datum: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:54:29 -0300
Von: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Betreff: Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical   
points about ...)

> Hi Manu,
> 
> > From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
> > Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then
> > it is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.
> 
> The point is that those issues are pending for a long time, and they
> should be solved, especially the module removal issue (*)
> 
> If you are so afraid about applying those changes, maybe the better is
> to apply those patches at v4l-dvb tree and at -mm, asking people to
> test.
> 
> We may hold their commit on kernel mainstream until the next kernel
> release, if nobody complains about, or otherwise revert the changes, if
> they proofed to cause troubles at dst and/or dvb-bt8xx.
> 
> Also, you (or others) may write another approach keeping the fixes with
> an strategy more adequate for dst.
> 
> Do you agree with this way?
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Mauro
> 
> (*) Currently, dst can be removed only with "rmmod -f", due to a wrong
> usage count. With Trent's patches, this were fixed.

Mauro,
First of all, Manu is not a machine shitting out solutions on other one's 
pressure.
And he is doing right so far, as far as what happened.

Second: You should do some self-reflection on the damage you did on the human 
layer.
You appear like not even having any intention or idea on how to do that, you 
just behave technocratic and cold, you are just doing "I-AM-THE-BOSS, 
AND-NOTHING-GOES-WITHOUT-ME"-politics, that's all. 

Even if you do not have at least partially any idea about it all, you just try 
to rule "godlike", you know. Not everybody agrees with that ruling style, just 
a hint for you that you do not ever want to see, because you prefer to be blind 
in order to rule, to move on to the daily dayplan, as if nothing happened. But 
there happened many things. But you just prefer to be blind.

Currently me and Manu are working on a long lasting project very harmonizing, 
which I never believed to be possible at all, but we do work together :-).

And as long as the the ruler behaviour and the ruling structure of linuxtv.org 
keeps on behaving like this (including all the nasty people like mrechberger 
for instance), then let me tell you that I care a shit about what is being 
pulled into the kernel and what is not, man!

Now if you cannot take that I feel sorry, but he whole system around here gotta 
be changed as far as maintainership is concerned.

You cannot go on like this, Mr. Chehab, and even if you keep on ignoring this 
message you will be producing nothing but damage in the end.

Noone was born to act and behave like a nodding nigger in front of you - and if 
you do not want to take that, well, then you're strictly obsolete, man!

Without any politeness

Uwe
> 
> 
> ___
> linux-dvb mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb

-- 
"Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Manu Abraham

Michael Krufky wrote:
> Manu Abraham wrote:
>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> Hi Manu,
>>>
 From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
 Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then
 it is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.
>>> The point is that those issues are pending for a long time, and they
>>> should be solved, especially the module removal issue (*)
>>>
>>> If you are so afraid about applying those changes, maybe the better is
>>> to apply those patches at v4l-dvb tree and at -mm, asking people to
>>> test.
>>>
>>> We may hold their commit on kernel mainstream until the next kernel
>>> release, if nobody complains about, or otherwise revert the changes, if
>>> they proofed to cause troubles at dst and/or dvb-bt8xx.
>>>
>>> Also, you (or others) may write another approach keeping the fixes with
>>> an strategy more adequate for dst.
>>>
>>> Do you agree with this way?
>> NACK
>>
>>> -- 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mauro
>>>
>>> (*) Currently, dst can be removed only with "rmmod -f", due to a wrong
>>> usage count. With Trent's patches, this were fixed.
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.dvb/27792/match=re+linux+dvb+unable+rmmod+dst+bt8xx
> 
> Just to make things clear, Manu, Are you telling us that the patch in the 
> above
> link addresses the use count bug?
>

Yes

> If that is the case, are you suggesting that that patch be applied to the
> repository instead of Trent's changesets?
> 

Yes

> Moreso, if that is the case, then the patch in the above link lacks a
> sign-off...  We need to apply SOMETHING to fix this problem, and you know the
> rules...
> 

Signed-off-by: Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> What should be done to fix the use count bug?
> 

It does fix, AFAIR

Regards,
Manu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Michael Krufky

Manu Abraham wrote:
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> Hi Manu,
>>
>>> From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
>>> Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then
>>> it is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.
>> The point is that those issues are pending for a long time, and they
>> should be solved, especially the module removal issue (*)
>>
>> If you are so afraid about applying those changes, maybe the better is
>> to apply those patches at v4l-dvb tree and at -mm, asking people to
>> test.
>>
>> We may hold their commit on kernel mainstream until the next kernel
>> release, if nobody complains about, or otherwise revert the changes, if
>> they proofed to cause troubles at dst and/or dvb-bt8xx.
>>
>> Also, you (or others) may write another approach keeping the fixes with
>> an strategy more adequate for dst.
>>
>> Do you agree with this way?
> 
> NACK
> 
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> Mauro
>>
>> (*) Currently, dst can be removed only with "rmmod -f", due to a wrong
>> usage count. With Trent's patches, this were fixed.
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.dvb/27792/match=re+linux+dvb+unable+rmmod+dst+bt8xx

Just to make things clear, Manu, Are you telling us that the patch in the above
link addresses the use count bug?

If that is the case, are you suggesting that that patch be applied to the
repository instead of Trent's changesets?

Moreso, if that is the case, then the patch in the above link lacks a
sign-off...  We need to apply SOMETHING to fix this problem, and you know the
rules...

What should be done to fix the use count bug?

Regards,

Michael Krufky

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Manu Abraham

Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Hi Manu,
> 
>> From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
>> Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then
>> it is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.
> 
> The point is that those issues are pending for a long time, and they
> should be solved, especially the module removal issue (*)
> 
> If you are so afraid about applying those changes, maybe the better is
> to apply those patches at v4l-dvb tree and at -mm, asking people to
> test.
> 
> We may hold their commit on kernel mainstream until the next kernel
> release, if nobody complains about, or otherwise revert the changes, if
> they proofed to cause troubles at dst and/or dvb-bt8xx.
> 
> Also, you (or others) may write another approach keeping the fixes with
> an strategy more adequate for dst.
> 
> Do you agree with this way?

NACK

> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Mauro
> 
> (*) Currently, dst can be removed only with "rmmod -f", due to a wrong
> usage count. With Trent's patches, this were fixed.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.dvb/27792/match=re+linux+dvb+unable+rmmod+dst+bt8xx

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Hi Manu,

> From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
> Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then
> it is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.

The point is that those issues are pending for a long time, and they
should be solved, especially the module removal issue (*)

If you are so afraid about applying those changes, maybe the better is
to apply those patches at v4l-dvb tree and at -mm, asking people to
test.

We may hold their commit on kernel mainstream until the next kernel
release, if nobody complains about, or otherwise revert the changes, if
they proofed to cause troubles at dst and/or dvb-bt8xx.

Also, you (or others) may write another approach keeping the fixes with
an strategy more adequate for dst.

Do you agree with this way?

-- 
Cheers,
Mauro

(*) Currently, dst can be removed only with "rmmod -f", due to a wrong
usage count. With Trent's patches, this were fixed.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Hi Manu,

 From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
 Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then
 it is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.

The point is that those issues are pending for a long time, and they
should be solved, especially the module removal issue (*)

If you are so afraid about applying those changes, maybe the better is
to apply those patches at v4l-dvb tree and at -mm, asking people to
test.

We may hold their commit on kernel mainstream until the next kernel
release, if nobody complains about, or otherwise revert the changes, if
they proofed to cause troubles at dst and/or dvb-bt8xx.

Also, you (or others) may write another approach keeping the fixes with
an strategy more adequate for dst.

Do you agree with this way?

-- 
Cheers,
Mauro

(*) Currently, dst can be removed only with rmmod -f, due to a wrong
usage count. With Trent's patches, this were fixed.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Manu Abraham

Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
 Hi Manu,
 
 From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
 Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then
 it is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.
 
 The point is that those issues are pending for a long time, and they
 should be solved, especially the module removal issue (*)
 
 If you are so afraid about applying those changes, maybe the better is
 to apply those patches at v4l-dvb tree and at -mm, asking people to
 test.
 
 We may hold their commit on kernel mainstream until the next kernel
 release, if nobody complains about, or otherwise revert the changes, if
 they proofed to cause troubles at dst and/or dvb-bt8xx.
 
 Also, you (or others) may write another approach keeping the fixes with
 an strategy more adequate for dst.
 
 Do you agree with this way?

NACK

 
 -- 
 Cheers,
 Mauro
 
 (*) Currently, dst can be removed only with rmmod -f, due to a wrong
 usage count. With Trent's patches, this were fixed.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.dvb/27792/match=re+linux+dvb+unable+rmmod+dst+bt8xx

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Michael Krufky

Manu Abraham wrote:
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hi Manu,

From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then
it is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.
The point is that those issues are pending for a long time, and they
should be solved, especially the module removal issue (*)

If you are so afraid about applying those changes, maybe the better is
to apply those patches at v4l-dvb tree and at -mm, asking people to
test.

We may hold their commit on kernel mainstream until the next kernel
release, if nobody complains about, or otherwise revert the changes, if
they proofed to cause troubles at dst and/or dvb-bt8xx.

Also, you (or others) may write another approach keeping the fixes with
an strategy more adequate for dst.

Do you agree with this way?

NACK

--
Cheers,
Mauro

(*) Currently, dst can be removed only with rmmod -f, due to a wrong
usage count. With Trent's patches, this were fixed.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.dvb/27792/match=re+linux+dvb+unable+rmmod+dst+bt8xx

Just to make things clear, Manu, Are you telling us that the patch in the above
link addresses the use count bug?

If that is the case, are you suggesting that that patch be applied to the
repository instead of Trent's changesets?

Moreso, if that is the case, then the patch in the above link lacks a
sign-off... We need to apply SOMETHING to fix this problem, and you know the
rules...

What should be done to fix the use count bug?

Regards,

Michael Krufky

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Manu Abraham

Michael Krufky wrote:
Manu Abraham wrote:
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hi Manu,

If you are so afraid about applying those changes, maybe the better is
to apply those patches at v4l-dvb tree and at -mm, asking people to
test.

We may hold their commit on kernel mainstream until the next kernel
release, if nobody complains about, or otherwise revert the changes, if
they proofed to cause troubles at dst and/or dvb-bt8xx.

Also, you (or others) may write another approach keeping the fixes with
an strategy more adequate for dst.

Do you agree with this way?
NACK

--
Cheers,
Mauro

(*) Currently, dst can be removed only with rmmod -f, due to a wrong
usage count. With Trent's patches, this were fixed.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.dvb/27792/match=re+linux+dvb+unable+rmmod+dst+bt8xx

Just to make things clear, Manu, Are you telling us that the patch in the
above
link addresses the use count bug?

Yes

If that is the case, are you suggesting that that patch be applied to the
repository instead of Trent's changesets?

Yes

Moreso, if that is the case, then the patch in the above link lacks a
sign-off... We need to apply SOMETHING to fix this problem, and you know the
rules...

Signed-off-by: Manu Abraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]

What should be done to fix the use count bug?

It does fix, AFAIR

Regards,
Manu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Uwe Bugla


 Original-Nachricht 
Datum: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:54:29 -0300
Von: Mauro Carvalho Chehab [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An: Manu Abraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Betreff: Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical   
points about ...)

 Hi Manu,
 
  From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
  Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then
  it is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.
 
 The point is that those issues are pending for a long time, and they
 should be solved, especially the module removal issue (*)
 
 If you are so afraid about applying those changes, maybe the better is
 to apply those patches at v4l-dvb tree and at -mm, asking people to
 test.
 
 We may hold their commit on kernel mainstream until the next kernel
 release, if nobody complains about, or otherwise revert the changes, if
 they proofed to cause troubles at dst and/or dvb-bt8xx.
 
 Also, you (or others) may write another approach keeping the fixes with
 an strategy more adequate for dst.
 
 Do you agree with this way?
 
 -- 
 Cheers,
 Mauro
 
 (*) Currently, dst can be removed only with rmmod -f, due to a wrong
 usage count. With Trent's patches, this were fixed.

Mauro,
First of all, Manu is not a machine shitting out solutions on other one's 
pressure.
And he is doing right so far, as far as what happened.

Second: You should do some self-reflection on the damage you did on the human 
layer.
You appear like not even having any intention or idea on how to do that, you 
just behave technocratic and cold, you are just doing I-AM-THE-BOSS, 
AND-NOTHING-GOES-WITHOUT-ME-politics, that's all. 

Even if you do not have at least partially any idea about it all, you just try 
to rule godlike, you know. Not everybody agrees with that ruling style, just 
a hint for you that you do not ever want to see, because you prefer to be blind 
in order to rule, to move on to the daily dayplan, as if nothing happened. But 
there happened many things. But you just prefer to be blind.

Currently me and Manu are working on a long lasting project very harmonizing, 
which I never believed to be possible at all, but we do work together :-).

And as long as the the ruler behaviour and the ruling structure of linuxtv.org 
keeps on behaving like this (including all the nasty people like mrechberger 
for instance), then let me tell you that I care a shit about what is being 
pulled into the kernel and what is not, man!

Now if you cannot take that I feel sorry, but he whole system around here gotta 
be changed as far as maintainership is concerned.

You cannot go on like this, Mr. Chehab, and even if you keep on ignoring this 
message you will be producing nothing but damage in the end.

Noone was born to act and behave like a nodding nigger in front of you - and if 
you do not want to take that, well, then you're strictly obsolete, man!

Without any politeness

Uwe
 
 
 ___
 linux-dvb mailing list
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb

-- 
Feel free - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Trent Piepho

On Wed, 2 May 2007, Manu Abraham wrote:
  I've been aware of the problem with dst not fully using the dvb 
  customization
  systems(*) for a long time.  It came up when dvb_attach() et al were first
  being integrated, well before any rejected patches or strongly worded emails
  or whatever from certain people that I'm aware of.
 

 Well, your understanding of the device is quite limited and hence your
 comments and patches.

Manu, have you actually looked at the patch?  It seems like you are just
rejecting everything that has anything to do with dst out of hand.

Can you point to any line of code there, and say what it breaks or what it
will make impossible?

 These features are not the characteristics of a DVB Frontend. Here there
 is a DVB frontend like the normal ones which is hidden behind another
 pseudo bridge (So you don't have *any* access to the frontend at large)

Again, did you actually look at the patch?  I never so much as used the
word frontend to describe the dst.  I didn't change the operation of the
dst in any way.  I didn't move it to a new place in the framework.

The bt8xx driver talks to the dst module via the dvb_frontend object, my
patch has nothing to do with this.  It is a simple patch for simple
programming issues and nothing to do with these larger issues you bring up.

 I would think that it would be *extremely* rude for a person to send in
 patches for a device that which you don't understand at all, when it is
 for limiting the capability of the said device

Is the problem that there is a bug in my patch?  Or is your problem that I
was rude in submitting any patch at all that had anything to do with your
code?  Do you feel that this part of the Linux kernel is owned by you, and
that no one else should be permitted to have anything to do with it?

  (*) There are two customization/dependency control systems in DVB.  One is
  dvb_attach(), the other is DVB_FE_CUSTOMISE.  They are not two entirely
  separate systems, but overlap in their design a great deal.

 Here we have the attach method attaching different objects, but
 basically it can be handled for the frontend devices only (and that too
 that share a very common trait, in this case, frontends are coupled
 using the i2c bus) and not for other devices. Situation changes when you
 use another interface such as SPI, where the interface is not well defined.

This is not correct.  The dvb_attach() system has no assumption that it will
be used for a front-end device.  There are already users which are not
front-ends, such as tuners or lnb supply control chips, and yes, dst, which
will all know very well is not a frontend.

It also has nothing do with the i2c.  The attached device could be connected
in any way.  I plan to add dvb_attach() support for the cx88 secondary i2c bus
driver (aka vp3054), and that isn't even a different chip.

  This design means the actual hard link between different drivers is limited 
  to
  each driver's single attach function (**).  By breaking this one link, we 
  can
  control which drivers must be loaded or linked to only those necessary or
  wanted.  dvb_attach() and DVB_FE_CUSTOMISE are two different ways of
  controlling these links.

 dvb_attach will have to go away for the DST. It doesn't work for the
 mentioned reasons that it is just pushing the device to a corner as a
 DVB frontend whereas it is not a DVB Frontend at all.

The dst is already using dvb_attach()!  I'm not changing that at all.

 being the author and maintainer of dst/dst_ca and maintainer of
 dvb-bt8xx, i NACK this change

Can one become a maintainer just be declaring ones self to be so?  Or is there
an expectation that a maintainer will in fact, maintain.  That is to say,
address concerns in a timely fashion, review patches and work in good faith to
resolve problems with said patches.

 What i would like to do is like this: Have the current state frozen as
 it is,

So as maintainer you are declaring that no changes of any kind are permitted?
That is to say, the code should become frozen, un-fixed and un-updated, in
other words, _unmaintained_.

How can you have it both ways, that you are the maintainer and that it should
be unmaintained?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-07 Thread Manu Abraham

Trent Piepho wrote:

 This is not correct.  The dvb_attach() system has no assumption that it will
 be used for a front-end device.  There are already users which are not
 front-ends, such as tuners or lnb supply control chips, 

SEC (aka Satellite Equipment Control) is a part of the frontend.

 
 So as maintainer you are declaring that no changes of any kind are permitted?

Please do take a look at the changesets whether it is as you say.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-05 Thread Manu Abraham

Hello Mauro,

Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Hi Manu,
> 
> Em Qui, 2007-05-03 às 23:03 +0400, Manu Abraham escreveu:
>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> Enough. Let's stop arguing non technical issues.
>>>
>>> If either one of you have any technical argue against the Trent's
>>> patches, please point where the fix is wrong. Otherwise, if you wish,
>>> you may send an acked-by agreeing with the fix.
>>>
>> Why don't you stop this childish behaviour ?
> 
> I just want to solve the current issue, and decide the proper way for Trent's 
> fixes. 
> 
> I consider you a very skilled programmer. Unfortunately, it seems that
> you're not interested anymore on submitting kernel patches, since your
> last contribution, as an author, were back on Aug, 8, 2006:

hmm .. multiple Caps "I 's" ..  anyway.

>From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then it
is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.

In such a case are you willing to fix all the issues/requests that surface ?

Really do you want me to explain those issues in this thread ? I would
say, think over it yourself, why that huge gap occurred. Take some time
off all this, think on a cool mind.


> 
> commit bbdd11fa957913d6648cabbca59be1da479180ed
> Author: Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:   Tue Aug 8 15:48:08 2006 -0300
> 
> V4L/DVB (4432): Fix Circular dependencies
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> 
> It would be a pleasure to have you contributing again. However, we need to 
> fix the pointed issues.


I do have a written another mail with regards to the issues that do
prevail on the "discussions thread"


> 
> Also, considering that:
> 
> 1) the Trent patches addressing the issues exists since august, 2006;
> 
> 2) nobody pointed any troubles at the current approach;
> 

Surely there was a long mail from my side. I don't know whether you
missed that mail, but surely you should read it again.


> 3) the patch does provide a proper fix for module removal, working well on 
> both hardwares with and without DST;
>

Other than what i wrote earlier:

DST is not for just one device alone (It is really a combo driver),
AFAICS there are ~15 -20 main devices, for which there are additional 5
- 6 clone manufacturers. So eventually there are around 80 different
cards at least.

So, in fact there are a large number of cards that do exist rather than
the one card that i have sent you, some time back.

The non dst cards supported by dvb-bt8xx are just 3 or 4 cards, IIRC.


> 4) I'm responsible for reviewing and forwarding patches for /drivers/media 
> stuff;
> 
> I think there's no reason for me to not forward the proper fixes to 
> mainstream.
> 

>From what i know, you do need an ACK from the relevant maintainer too.
Did the concept of dvb-maintainers change without any of the DVB
developers knowing ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-05 Thread Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Hi Manu,

Em Qui, 2007-05-03 às 23:03 +0400, Manu Abraham escreveu:
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Enough. Let's stop arguing non technical issues.
> > 
> > If either one of you have any technical argue against the Trent's
> > patches, please point where the fix is wrong. Otherwise, if you wish,
> > you may send an acked-by agreeing with the fix.
> > 
> 
> Why don't you stop this childish behaviour ?

I just want to solve the current issue, and decide the proper way for Trent's 
fixes. 

I consider you a very skilled programmer. Unfortunately, it seems that
you're not interested anymore on submitting kernel patches, since your
last contribution, as an author, were back on Aug, 8, 2006:

commit bbdd11fa957913d6648cabbca59be1da479180ed
Author: Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:   Tue Aug 8 15:48:08 2006 -0300

V4L/DVB (4432): Fix Circular dependencies

Signed-off-by: Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

It would be a pleasure to have you contributing again. However, we need to fix 
the pointed issues.

Also, considering that:

1) the Trent patches addressing the issues exists since august, 2006;

2) nobody pointed any troubles at the current approach;

3) the patch does provide a proper fix for module removal, working well on both 
hardwares with and without DST;

4) I'm responsible for reviewing and forwarding patches for /drivers/media 
stuff;

I think there's no reason for me to not forward the proper fixes to mainstream.

-- 
Cheers,
Mauro

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-05 Thread Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Hi Manu,

Em Qui, 2007-05-03 às 23:03 +0400, Manu Abraham escreveu:
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
  Enough. Let's stop arguing non technical issues.
  
  If either one of you have any technical argue against the Trent's
  patches, please point where the fix is wrong. Otherwise, if you wish,
  you may send an acked-by agreeing with the fix.
  
 
 Why don't you stop this childish behaviour ?

I just want to solve the current issue, and decide the proper way for Trent's 
fixes. 

I consider you a very skilled programmer. Unfortunately, it seems that
you're not interested anymore on submitting kernel patches, since your
last contribution, as an author, were back on Aug, 8, 2006:

commit bbdd11fa957913d6648cabbca59be1da479180ed
Author: Manu Abraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:   Tue Aug 8 15:48:08 2006 -0300

V4L/DVB (4432): Fix Circular dependencies

Signed-off-by: Manu Abraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

It would be a pleasure to have you contributing again. However, we need to fix 
the pointed issues.

Also, considering that:

1) the Trent patches addressing the issues exists since august, 2006;

2) nobody pointed any troubles at the current approach;

3) the patch does provide a proper fix for module removal, working well on both 
hardwares with and without DST;

4) I'm responsible for reviewing and forwarding patches for /drivers/media 
stuff;

I think there's no reason for me to not forward the proper fixes to mainstream.

-- 
Cheers,
Mauro

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-05 Thread Manu Abraham

Hello Mauro,

Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
 Hi Manu,
 
 Em Qui, 2007-05-03 às 23:03 +0400, Manu Abraham escreveu:
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
 Enough. Let's stop arguing non technical issues.

 If either one of you have any technical argue against the Trent's
 patches, please point where the fix is wrong. Otherwise, if you wish,
 you may send an acked-by agreeing with the fix.

 Why don't you stop this childish behaviour ?
 
 I just want to solve the current issue, and decide the proper way for Trent's 
 fixes. 
 
 I consider you a very skilled programmer. Unfortunately, it seems that
 you're not interested anymore on submitting kernel patches, since your
 last contribution, as an author, were back on Aug, 8, 2006:

hmm .. multiple Caps I 's ..  anyway.

From my side, quite some time has been put forward to write that mail.
Inspite of that if you feel that you do have to go your own way, then it
is completely upto you. I would say: do as you feel in such a case.

In such a case are you willing to fix all the issues/requests that surface ?

Really do you want me to explain those issues in this thread ? I would
say, think over it yourself, why that huge gap occurred. Take some time
off all this, think on a cool mind.


 
 commit bbdd11fa957913d6648cabbca59be1da479180ed
 Author: Manu Abraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date:   Tue Aug 8 15:48:08 2006 -0300
 
 V4L/DVB (4432): Fix Circular dependencies
 
 Signed-off-by: Manu Abraham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 
 It would be a pleasure to have you contributing again. However, we need to 
 fix the pointed issues.


I do have a written another mail with regards to the issues that do
prevail on the discussions thread


 
 Also, considering that:
 
 1) the Trent patches addressing the issues exists since august, 2006;
 
 2) nobody pointed any troubles at the current approach;
 

Surely there was a long mail from my side. I don't know whether you
missed that mail, but surely you should read it again.


 3) the patch does provide a proper fix for module removal, working well on 
 both hardwares with and without DST;


Other than what i wrote earlier:

DST is not for just one device alone (It is really a combo driver),
AFAICS there are ~15 -20 main devices, for which there are additional 5
- 6 clone manufacturers. So eventually there are around 80 different
cards at least.

So, in fact there are a large number of cards that do exist rather than
the one card that i have sent you, some time back.

The non dst cards supported by dvb-bt8xx are just 3 or 4 cards, IIRC.


 4) I'm responsible for reviewing and forwarding patches for /drivers/media 
 stuff;
 
 I think there's no reason for me to not forward the proper fixes to 
 mainstream.
 

From what i know, you do need an ACK from the relevant maintainer too.
Did the concept of dvb-maintainers change without any of the DVB
developers knowing ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-03 Thread Uwe Bugla

 Original-Nachricht 
Datum: Fri, 04 May 2007 02:31:49 +0400
Von: Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Betreff: Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical   
points about ...)

> Markus Rechberger wrote:
> 
> > I mean the mail from Helge Hafting (thread  [linux-dvb] Critical
> > points about kernel 2.6.21 and pseudo-authorities) at the very first
> > beginning.
> > 
> 
> I am replying to this mail, just because someone's spreading lies all
> around.
> On the mentioned thread, what i wrote (and that was the only mail from
> my side):
> 
> There is a saying: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."

Hi Manu,

The saying that you stated is a very christian one.
I perhaps should state that I am 47 years old now, raised in in utmost 
reactionary region called Bavaria (Western Germany), and also raised by parents 
of Russian / Polonian origin who shared the Nazi regime with the usual 
"I-do-not-want-to-talk-about-it-and-I-do-not-want-to-feel-responsible-about-it  

"-behaviour.
And I am very much not only interested in german post-war history, but I simply 
love to write provocative letters or mails to make my conviction utmost clear 
that all this capitalist bullshit around us should vanish and shrink and be 
overcome some day.

Basic christian ideals are very close to basic marxist ideas.
The one who never does perceive that is a real poor human being in my eyes, if 
not to say: a complete idiot or a system-conforming hypocrite.

BUT:
I in fact do not read this "saying" for the first time:

In my personal experience (feel very sorry about it, but it's true) it has 
always truthfully been an excuse for persons being strongly limited on what I 
would call utmost primitive instincts like greed or rapacity (i. e. the utmost 
perfect sounding "would-like-to-capitalists", if not to say: the perfect slaves 
or: the perfect counterrevolutionaries or strike-breakers, if not to say: the 
utmost perfect asscreepers).

Please forgive me for that statement, but I am simply stating my personal 
experiences very truthfully, without playing any politics, but just telling you 
my "personal truth" or the sum of all my personal life experience unfortunately 
bound to that.

And if there is discussion needed on that we should do it private or anyway on 
some other thread, but definitely not on this one.

Hints to help you to understand the difference:

1. There is a GPL license written by Richard Stallman whose origin I do not 
know:
Its essence is the philosophy to share and to be highly transparent as far as 
information level is concerned.

2. There is a saying by Linus in which he states the best choice he ever did 
was conforming his work to the terms of Richard Stallman, the GPL.

3. Wikipedia says that Linus's father was no christian at all, but simply a 
communist.

See, Manu, there are deeply primitive instinct-driven hypocrites around like 
hell, but there are also truthful human beings around.

But:
The Internet does not provide a platform to find out who is who and what is 
what.
The Internet may be necessary, but in the end it's just a drag, isn't it?

Sincerely
Uwe
> 
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [linux-dvb] Re: Critical points about kernel 2.6.21  and
> pseudo-authorities
> Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 04:19:41 +0400
> From: Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Uwe Bugla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED],  [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,  [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Uwe Bugla wrote:
> 
> > 1. You utmost personally are responsible for 4 ununsable kernels, as
> far as bt8xx cards are concerned: 2.6.13, 2.6.14, 2.6.15, 2.6.16!
> > 2. You did not even want to imply to resolve that issue by incarnating
> that "community and synergy principle" that linux community needs to
> exist at all, but you just perverted it by flaming capable people -
> 
> You mean like this:
> 
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject: kernel patch practice in 2.6.13-mm2
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:46:35 +0200 (MEST)
> From: Uwe Bugla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: [EMA

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-03 Thread hermann pitton

Am Freitag, den 04.05.2007, 02:31 +0400 schrieb Manu Abraham:
> Markus Rechberger wrote:
> 
> > I mean the mail from Helge Hafting (thread  [linux-dvb] Critical
> > points about kernel 2.6.21 and pseudo-authorities) at the very first
> > beginning.
> > 
> 
> I am replying to this mail, just because someone's spreading lies all
> around.
> On the mentioned thread, what i wrote (and that was the only mail from
> my side):
> 
> There is a saying: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
> 

Within the last six years there was in the end exactly one, never asked
for, private mail with worst *bullshit* about another person, Mauro in
this case.

It came from you, out of any feasible arguments for me anymore.

I'm stupid, but not stupid enough to allow such stuff coming in rule.

But I still say you have been first and are waiting longest to get your
work in, please try again to get your ACKs and rant about not enough
replies.

Cheers,
Hermann

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-03 Thread Uwe Bugla

 Original-Nachricht 
Datum: Fri, 4 May 2007 00:06:51 +0200
Von: "Markus Rechberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: "Manu Abraham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Betreff: Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical   
points about ...)

> On 5/3/07, Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Markus Rechberger wrote:
> > > On 5/3/07, Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > >> > Enough. Let's stop arguing non technical issues.
> > >> >
> > >> > If either one of you have any technical argue against the Trent's
> > >> > patches, please point where the fix is wrong. Otherwise, if you
> wish,
> > >> > you may send an acked-by agreeing with the fix.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Why don't you stop this childish behaviour ?
> > >>
> > >> After explaining to you the reasons in the previous mail:
> > >> being the author and maintainer of dst/dst_ca and maintainer of
> > >> dvb-bt8xx, i NACK this change
> > >>
> > >> (1) You aren't DVB maintainer
> > >
> > > I've seen that too often already, now we could point to a mail someone
> > > sent to Uwe regarding maintainership.
> >
> >
> > FYI, I have never written to Uwe regarding any sort of maintainership.
> > You seem to be quite up with an overdose of drugs
> >
> 
> I mean the mail from Helge Hafting (thread  [linux-dvb] Critical
> points about kernel 2.6.21 and pseudo-authorities) at the very first
> beginning.
> 
> > From 2005/09/13 - 2007/05/03 (till date) there have been 15 mails from
> > my side to Uwe, none of which has a topic whatsoever you say. Only the
> > first mail was a private mail and that is CC'd to Johannes as well.
> >
> > Firstly you seem to play politics by getting Uwe to flame me, then when
> > it backfired, you are trying to play tricks with the rest of the
> > community as well, by spreading nonsense statements.
> >
> 
> I sent several comments to Uwe to stop flaming, Trent was in the CC
> sometimes I never wrote that he should flame on anyone.
> I can simply forward you all mails I sent to Uwe there's not one bad mail.
> 
> My point is moreover to get that issue sorted out by either accepting
> his "proposal" or stating out why not to add it (and there must be a
> reason behind it, and no mail which is 2 years old, or explaining what
> the device is, again it got explained what's required from you)
> 
> seems like your response is based on that misunderstood sentence,
> sorry for not beeing clear enough.
> 
> Markus

Hi Markus, fine chap,
Please cool down...

I guess I understood Manu's response:

a. He just changed his priorities to pick up an old project that seemed to have 
died, but did not die at all - this project is called cx878 project, and it is 
the most radical approach that I ever have seen - trying to make all BT8xx 
drivers independent from bttv, which is not horrible, but only consequent, 
necessary, and good and fine.
Please see my previous mails on that issue.

Just read the ML to get the appropriate link and please get yourself in it to 
help developping it. I swear it is the right path, although I am still missing 
the avoidance of dvb-pll.c. A closer look into that module will quite easily 
tell you
that there aren't any BT8xx based PCI cards needing that module except the ones 
needing the lgdt330x frontend driver, which is maintained by Mike Krufky. So 
for all other cards treated by the dvb-bt8xx backend this module is nothing but 
heavily obsolete and nonsense, if not to say: RAM-Wasting.

b. In so far, Manu's statements do not base on any mail that is 2 years old, 
but he simply changed his mind, after it was necessarily me personally to build 
up "the golden bridge" for him, Mike and others as well.

c. I am deeply thankful for your diplomatic behaviour involving Trent, as this 
brought up Manu to react in the end instead of crawling back into his snail 
house.

d. But please let us establish peace among each other now, because without 
peace we will not be able to continue the whole thing...

Hi Trent,
I want to thank you for all your efforts - as they at least work for my deep 
satisfaction, but they may not work for other people as well for simply 
technical reasons (example: treating dst and dst_ca as one simple case does no 
good at all, does it?), but our primadonna Manuel Abraham simply follows 
another far more radical path - to get the whole thing independent from bttv, 
which is the RIGHT path.

Your invested energies weren't wasted at all, but they only appro

Re: [linux-dvb] DST/BT878 module customization (.. was: Critical points about ...)

2007-05-03 Thread Markus Rechberger

On 5/4/07, Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Markus Rechberger wrote:

> I mean the mail from Helge Hafting (thread  [linux-dvb] Critical
> points about kernel 2.6.21 and pseudo-authorities) at the very first
> beginning.
>

I am replying to this mail, just because someone's spreading lies all
around.
On the mentioned thread, what i wrote (and that was the only mail from
my side):

There is a saying: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."

And what issues are outstanding of these discussions? I went over it
and it just shows up that there have been communication problems in
2005.

We now have open issues with several device drivers and that's what we
should focus at.

Markus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

80 matches

Mail list logo