At times, Markus tried to block those changes. Take look on the story with Reiserfs and Reiser4: The tone of the discussion is, perhaps, best seen from this note sent to Video4Linux maintainer Mauro Carvalho Chehab: It’s a huge amount of work that no one wants to do and in this case with very little benefit. I never dropped off anyone contributing to that project, rather helped them to get further into it and the code authors as well as the support mailinglist are a proof of that.
|Date Added:||16 April 2013|
|File Size:||18.9 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Linux source code: drivers/media/video/em28xx/em28xx-video.c (v) – Bootlin
Now continue reading with the article ontop of it. Let’s just agree that you guys disagreed, and move forward. Log in to post comments The sad story of the em28xx driver. The advantages of improving the current driver, rather than duplicating some of its functionality in a new code base, are clear.
It’s all about em28dx there, A likes B instead of C even if C has better stuff and supporters, so A will wait till B completes his stuff, and C will be pushed away as long as possible without clean reviews or something else, this is just the way how it works out.
The sad story of the em28xx driver
Mauro doesn’t explain his reason for not wanting both. As a user, it’s unbelievable to me that these guys have so much time on their hand for childish flamewars. The project is moreover looking for lower skilled people who can be taught what to do do it as A or B says otherwise they’ll run against C.
So at that point there was already a large codebase depending on it, and a merge request has been sent. I came up with the idea to refactor the tuner stuff in order to be able to use the same tuner code between both v4l and dvb, to make the story short this was declined.
I just want to avoid spending hours on it again. What we have here is a classic story of an em8xx mismatch between a developer and the development community.
Only after this effort was well underway did Markus begin developing yet another in-kernel driver. By Jonathan Corbet November 11, Over the last year or two, the kernel development process has been changed in a deliberate attempt to make the addition of new drivers easier.
But rejecting Markus’s new driver out of hand might just be a mistake. During lunux time while working on it the driver already started supported more and more devices, and lknux small gap at the beginning became as a base for the entire code, everytime I tried to rework some bits in it it broke alot devices. Multiple drivers are easily accepted as temporary solution, but then someone must merge support for other hardware – and then we have “reiserfs situation” where developer works for it’s own feature and against all others Posted Nov 12, 6: They ended with Markus submitting some code which made non-backwards compatible changes to that code something some of the other developers didn’t like ; one of them en28xx a simple change that would add better backwards compatibility, but Markus basically said “take it as it is or leave it”.
In this case it’s bloody disgusting that code was put on the backburner in favour linhx waiting for somebody else to complete their alternative solution just em28sx A liked B better than C. This driver works with a number of video acquisition devices based on Empia chips; many of those are not supported by the kernel now.
By Jonathan Corbet November 11, Obviously, this hasn’t worked out very well in this instance.
Ok I acknowledge that is what’s wanted and how it should be done. At the beginning of hybrid devices came up and I continued to work on the driver.
Posted Nov 12, 0: So it is not entirely surprising that this driver has not been received with a great deal of enthusiasm. This was basically my try to make development liberal and not driven by one single person.
How to configure the Linux kernel/drivers/media/video/em28xx
It has coding style and copyright attribution problems; a quick review has also left your editor wondering about locking issues. So now the userspace stuff comes in thinking about how to open up that project again so that work can be used with the existing kernel.
Finally his stuff got merged, bringing my code totally out of sync, and patches which got into mainstream were mostly derived from my code too. Here we have again one guy against a supposed “clique” of kernel developers. It’s about that this code has been available for years http: If there are technical reasons to have two drivers it’s Ok, but if the reasons are political It would avoid the confusion which can come from having two drivers for the same hardware in the tree, and it would minimize the risk of losing liunx fixes which have been applied to the in-tree code.
We got video, tuning and audio work.