On Sunday 13 September 2009 17:54:11 wk wrote:
> Hans Verkuil schrieb:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've started this as a new thread to prevent polluting the discussions of
> > the
> > media controller as a concept.
> >
> > First of all, I have no doubt that everything that you can do with an ioctl,
> > you can also do with sysfs and vice versa. That's not the problem here.
> >
> > The problem is deciding which approach is the best.
> >
> >
>
> Is it really a good idea to create a dependency to some virtual file
> system which may go away in future?
> From time to time some of those seem to go away, for example devfs.
>
> Is it really unavoidable to have something in sysfs, something which is
> really not possible with ioctls?
> And do you really want to depend on sysfs developers?
One other interesting question is: currently the V4L2 API is also used by BSD
variants for their video drivers. Our V4L2 header is explicitly dual-licensed
to allow this. I don't think that BSD has sysfs. So making the media controller
sysfs-based only would make it very hard for them if they ever want to port
drivers that rely on that to BSD.
Yes, I know that strictly speaking we don't have to care about that, but it
is yet another argument against the use of sysfs as far as I am concerned.
Regards,
Hans
--
Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG Telecom
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
