Em Qua, 2005-08-31 às 13:56 -0700, Greg KH escreveu:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 12:34:58PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Ter, 2005-08-30 ?s 23:20 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu:
> > > Hi Mauro,
> > >
> > > > (...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C
> > > > API for every single
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 12:34:58PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Ter, 2005-08-30 ?s 23:20 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu:
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > > (...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C
> > > API for every single 2.6 version :-) It would be nice to change I2C
> > > API once
Em Ter, 2005-08-30 às 23:20 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> > (...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C
> > API for every single 2.6 version :-) It would be nice to change I2C
> > API once and keep it stable for a while.
> The Linux 2.6 development model is designed around
Em Ter, 2005-08-30 às 23:20 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu:
Hi Mauro,
(...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C
API for every single 2.6 version :-) It would be nice to change I2C
API once and keep it stable for a while.
The Linux 2.6 development model is designed around a
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 12:34:58PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em Ter, 2005-08-30 ?s 23:20 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu:
Hi Mauro,
(...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C
API for every single 2.6 version :-) It would be nice to change I2C
API once and keep it
Em Qua, 2005-08-31 às 13:56 -0700, Greg KH escreveu:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 12:34:58PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em Ter, 2005-08-30 ?s 23:20 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu:
Hi Mauro,
(...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C
API for every single 2.6 version :-)
Hi Mauro,
> (...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C
> API for every single 2.6 version :-) It would be nice to change I2C
> API once and keep it stable for a while.
As nice as you seem to think it would be, I don't think it's not
realistic. For one thing, we don't necessarily know in
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:12:42PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>
> I have a question for you about I2C: why i2c_driver doesn't have a
> generic pointer to keep priv data (like i2c_adapter) ?
Because no one has sent in a patch to add it :)
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 09:12:42PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
I have a question for you about I2C: why i2c_driver doesn't have a
generic pointer to keep priv data (like i2c_adapter) ?
Because no one has sent in a patch to add it :)
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this
Hi Mauro,
(...) it would be nice not to have a different I2C
API for every single 2.6 version :-) It would be nice to change I2C
API once and keep it stable for a while.
As nice as you seem to think it would be, I don't think it's not
realistic. For one thing, we don't necessarily know in
Hi, Jean,
Em Qui, 2005-08-25 às 00:19 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> > That's not true. We keep V4L tree compatible with older kernel
> > releases. Each change like this does generate a lot of work at V4L
> > side to provide #ifdefs to check for linux version and provide a
> >
Hi, Jean,
Em Qui, 2005-08-25 às 00:19 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu:
Hi Mauro,
That's not true. We keep V4L tree compatible with older kernel
releases. Each change like this does generate a lot of work at V4L
side to provide #ifdefs to check for linux version and provide a
compatible
Hi Mauro,
> > I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname were introduced in 2.5.68 [1] to help
> > media/video driver authors who wanted their code to be compatible
> > with both Linux 2.4 and 2.6. The cause of the incompatibility has
> > gone since [2], so I think we can get rid of them, as they tend to
> >
Hi Mauro,
I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname were introduced in 2.5.68 [1] to help
media/video driver authors who wanted their code to be compatible
with both Linux 2.4 and 2.6. The cause of the incompatibility has
gone since [2], so I think we can get rid of them, as they tend to
make the
Em Seg, 2005-08-15 às 19:57 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu:
> Hi all,
>
> I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname were introduced in 2.5.68 [1] to help
> media/video driver authors who wanted their code to be compatible with
> both Linux 2.4 and 2.6. The cause of the incompatibility has gone since
> [2], so
Em Seg, 2005-08-15 às 19:57 +0200, Jean Delvare escreveu:
Hi all,
I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname were introduced in 2.5.68 [1] to help
media/video driver authors who wanted their code to be compatible with
both Linux 2.4 and 2.6. The cause of the incompatibility has gone since
[2], so I
Hi all,
I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname were introduced in 2.5.68 [1] to help
media/video driver authors who wanted their code to be compatible with
both Linux 2.4 and 2.6. The cause of the incompatibility has gone since
[2], so I think we can get rid of them, as they tend to make the code
harder
Hi all,
I2C_DEVNAME and i2c_clientname were introduced in 2.5.68 [1] to help
media/video driver authors who wanted their code to be compatible with
both Linux 2.4 and 2.6. The cause of the incompatibility has gone since
[2], so I think we can get rid of them, as they tend to make the code
harder
18 matches
Mail list logo
