Hi Trent,
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:58:10 -0800 (PST), Trent Piepho wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Well, that's basically what Hans has been doing with
> > v4l2-i2c-drv-legacy.h for months now, isn't it? This is the easy part
> > (even though even this wasn't exactly trivial...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:42:17 -0600 (CST), kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
> This is not exactly what I was trying to say. I'll try again.
>
> 1. Anyone who would call himself a developer will run quite recent kernels
> without being forced to do so, voluntarily and with pleasure.
>
> 2. So
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hi Theodore,
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:30:16 -0600 (CST)
kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
Hoping that I can offer some helpful comments on this thread, as someone
who came along only in the last couple of months or so:
1. One of the most
Hi,
just a short confirmation for cx88xx cards with external audio decoders.
Am Samstag, den 21.02.2009, 09:56 -0300 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:45:40 +0100
> Hans Verkuil wrote:
>
> > > tda9840 support is provided by tda9840.ko, but there's no
> > > request_module()
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:45:40 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Saturday 21 February 2009 12:58:01 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:28:50 +0100
> > Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > OK, once more: there are two types of legacy code: one is that drivers
> > > have to be switched to use
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:06:53 -0800 (PST), Trent Piepho wrote:
> > The new i2c driver interface also supports a ->detect() method and a list
> > of address_data to use it with. This is much more like the legacy model
> > than using i2c_new_probed_device().
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:28:31 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Saturday 21 February 2009 14:11:30 Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Well, that's basically what Hans has been doing with
> > v4l2-i2c-drv-legacy.h for months now, isn't it? This is the easy part
> > (even though even this wasn't exactly trivial...
On Saturday 21 February 2009 14:11:30 Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Trent,
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:06:53 -0800 (PST), Trent Piepho wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:12:53 +0100
> > >
> > > Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > > That's what the i2c_new_pro
Hi Trent,
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:06:53 -0800 (PST), Trent Piepho wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:12:53 +0100
> > Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > That's what the i2c_new_probed_device() call is for (called through
> > > v4l2_i2c_new_probed_subdev). Y
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Trent Piepho wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:12:53 +0100
> > Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > > I think that maybe we'll need some legacy-like support for bttv and
> > > > cx88,
> > > > since there are some
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:45:40 +0100
Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > tda9840 support is provided by tda9840.ko, but there's no
> > request_module() or any other reference (except for the above comment) to
> > it at bttv driver. I believe that this is not an isolated case.
>
> The tda9840 is handled by tva
On Saturday 21 February 2009 12:58:01 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:28:50 +0100
>
> Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 February 2009 03:13:50 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:12:53 +0100
> > >
> > > Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > > > I think that ma
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:12:53 +0100
> Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > I think that maybe we'll need some legacy-like support for bttv and cx88,
> > > since there are some boards that relies on the old i2c method to work. On
> > > those boards (like cx88
On Saturday 21 February 2009 12:50:46 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:06:38 +0100
>
> Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > Especially companies like Texas Instruments that
> > are working on new v4l2 drivers for the embedded space (omap, davinci)
> > are quite annoyed and confused by all
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:28:50 +0100
Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Saturday 21 February 2009 03:13:50 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:12:53 +0100
> >
> > Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > > I think that maybe we'll need some legacy-like support for bttv and
> > > > cx88, since there are
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:06:38 +0100
Hans Verkuil wrote:
> Especially companies like Texas Instruments that
> are working on new v4l2 drivers for the embedded space (omap, davinci) are
> quite annoyed and confused by all the backwards compatibility stuff that
> we're dragging along. I find it mu
Hi Mauro,
Only answering points Hans didn't already answered (and I agree with
him):
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:23:27 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:01:05 +0100
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Not necessarily something to be proud about. This only shows how slowly
> > v4l has
On Saturday 21 February 2009 03:13:50 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:12:53 +0100
>
> Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > > I think that maybe we'll need some legacy-like support for bttv and
> > > cx88, since there are some boards that relies on the old i2c method
> > > to work. On thos
Hi,
[...]
> The worse one will be bttv. For sure there are several cases where users need
> to load the i2c modules by hand.
>
> On cx88, the only case I know is with Pixelview Ultra Pro devices. Yet, I
> dunno
> how to properly solve it. The manufacturer chipped a dozen of different
> boards,
Hi Theodore,
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:30:16 -0600 (CST)
kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
> Hoping that I can offer some helpful comments on this thread, as someone
> who came along only in the last couple of months or so:
>
> 1. One of the most interesting features which I found in the video
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:12:53 +0100
Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > I think that maybe we'll need some legacy-like support for bttv and cx88,
> > since there are some boards that relies on the old i2c method to work. On
> > those boards (like cx88 Pixelview), the same board model (and PCB
> > revision) ma
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:01:05 +0100
Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Mauro,
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:10:41 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:55:53 +0100 (CET)
"Hans Verkuil" wrote:
Not at all. I work with embedded systems an
On Saturday 21 February 2009 01:23:27 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:01:05 +0100
>
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:10:41 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:55:53 +0100 (CET)
> > >
> > > "Hans Verkuil" wrote:
>
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:01:05 +0100
Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:10:41 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:55:53 +0100 (CET)
> > "Hans Verkuil" wrote:
> >
> > > Not at all. I work with embedded systems and what happens is that you
> > > e
Am Freitag, den 20.02.2009, 10:49 +0100 schrieb Jean Delvare:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:53:16 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On Friday 20 February 2009 04:57:11 hermann pitton wrote:
> > > Hans decided deliberately to extend backward compat even down to 2.6.16,
> > > now seeing the bill.
> >
> > I
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:53:16 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Friday 20 February 2009 04:57:11 hermann pitton wrote:
> > Hans decided deliberately to extend backward compat even down to 2.6.16,
> > now seeing the bill.
>
> I didn't extend it, instead I reduced the backward compat to 2.6.16 at the
On Friday 20 February 2009 04:57:11 hermann pitton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ---
>
> I don't want to come up with old stories about what happened in the
> past, there are some.
>
> It looks like Jean tries to find a good compromise.
>
> So, I don't deny, that recent Fedora stuff is not as stable as it was
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 18.02.2009, 14:01 +0100 schrieb Jean Delvare:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:10:41 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:55:53 +0100 (CET)
> > "Hans Verkuil" wrote:
> >
> > > Not at all. I work with embedded systems and what happens is that
Hi Mauro,
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:10:41 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:55:53 +0100 (CET)
> "Hans Verkuil" wrote:
>
> > Not at all. I work with embedded systems and what happens is that you
> > effectively take a kernel snapshot for your device and stick to that.
> >
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:54:30 +0100 (CET)
"Hans Verkuil" wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:55:53 +0100 (CET)
> > "Hans Verkuil" wrote:
> >
> >> Not at all. I work with embedded systems and what happens is that you
> >> effectively take a kernel snapshot for your device and stick to
Hi Mauro,
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:55:53 +0100 (CET)
> "Hans Verkuil" wrote:
>
>> Not at all. I work with embedded systems and what happens is that you
>> effectively take a kernel snapshot for your device and stick to that.
>> You're not using v4l-dvb, but you might backport important fixes on
>
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:55:53 +0100 (CET)
"Hans Verkuil" wrote:
> Not at all. I work with embedded systems and what happens is that you
> effectively take a kernel snapshot for your device and stick to that.
> You're not using v4l-dvb, but you might backport important fixes on
> occasion.
>
> Aga
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 2/18/09, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>
>> From: Hans Verkuil
>> Subject: Re: Minimum kernel version supported by v4l-dvb
>> To: "Mauro Carvalho Chehab"
>> Cc: "Jean Delvare" , linux-media@vger.kernel.org
>> Date:
--- On Wed, 2/18/09, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> From: Hans Verkuil
> Subject: Re: Minimum kernel version supported by v4l-dvb
> To: "Mauro Carvalho Chehab"
> Cc: "Jean Delvare" , linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 9:36 AM
>
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 03:08:15 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:18:37 +0100
>
> Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 February 2009 01:08:23 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:23:27 +0100
> > >
> > > Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > Hi Mauro,
> > >
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:18:37 +0100
Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 February 2009 01:08:23 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:23:27 +0100
> >
> > Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Hi Mauro,
> > >
> > > These days I am helping Hans Verkuil convert the last users of the
> > > leg
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 01:08:23 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:23:27 +0100
>
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > These days I am helping Hans Verkuil convert the last users of the
> > legacy i2c device driver binding model to the new, standard binding
> > mode
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:23:27 +0100
Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> These days I am helping Hans Verkuil convert the last users of the
> legacy i2c device driver binding model to the new, standard binding
> model. It turns out to be a very complex task because the v4l-dvb
> repository is supp
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 23:24:03 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 14:23:27 Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Hi Mauro,
> >
> > These days I am helping Hans Verkuil convert the last users of the
> > legacy i2c device driver binding model to the new, standard binding
> > m
Hi Jean,
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 14:23:27 Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
>
> These days I am helping Hans Verkuil convert the last users of the
> legacy i2c device driver binding model to the new, standard binding
> model. It turns out to be a very complex task because the v4l-dvb
> repositor
Hi Mauro,
These days I am helping Hans Verkuil convert the last users of the
legacy i2c device driver binding model to the new, standard binding
model. It turns out to be a very complex task because the v4l-dvb
repository is supposed to still support kernels as old as 2.6.16, while
the initial sup
41 matches
Mail list logo
