Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:06:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:06:48 -0500 Received: from mpdr0.detroit.mi.ameritech.net ([206.141.239.206]:57854 "EHLO mailhost.det.ameritech.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:06:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:10:14 -0500 (EST) From: volodya@mindspring.com Reply-To: volodya@mindspring.com To: Gerd Knorr cc: video4linux-list@redhat.com, livid-gatos@linuxvideo.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [V4L] Re: [RFC] alternative kernel multimedia API In-Reply-To: <20011030105151.A4545@bytesex.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Gerd Knorr wrote: > > > > So I can distribute the driver and the application to use it and not > > > > depend on the kernel version. > > > > > > The exported API must not depend on the kernel version. If the API > > > changes in a way which isn't backward compatible, it is a kernel bug. > > > > I already got a report from the user that in his kernel > > video_register_device has 2 arguments and not 3. This is pain to deal with > > in drivers distributed separately from kernel tree. > > Internal kernel interfaces are another story, they are not fixed and are > allways subject to change and not limited to v4l. See the major pci > subsystem changes from 2.2 => 2.4 for example. The API visible to the > application matters, this must stay backward compatible. You are starting to see my point. I want API flexible enough not to require #ifdef's each time a new feature is added. Driver is an application in it's own right. While 2.2=>2.4 change is ok, I really dislike such changes in the _stable_ kernel. > > > > I can't see why it is a problem to add a new header or new ioctls to > > > a existing header file. I like it this way, because the kernel headers > > > with all the #defines and structs are providing at least a minimum of > > > documentation. I do often read header files when programming stuff. > > > > > > > Because we don't know which interface is best until we experiment with > > it. And I can't experiment without people being able to test. And the > > easier it is to compile and install code the more testers (and developers > > !) we get. > > I can't see why ioctls don't allow you to experiment. > Well, could you add then an ioctl to the current kernel so I can experiment with it ? I want it in the kernel headers so that the applications will compile whether or not the driver sourcecode has been installed. Nothing fancy, just an ioctl number something along #define V4L_VLADIMIR_DERGACHEV_PRIVATE_IOCTL _IOWR(....) I'll take care of the structs ;) > > > Of course old applications don't know about the new stuff (neither the > > > temporary nor the final versions which make in into the official API > > > some day maybe). But I don't see how your approach handles this better: > > > Applications still need to be hacked to use the new stuff ... > > > > > > > The way you write device specific appliacation is by including kernel > > headers. If the stuff we want is not there makes a lot trouble for > > installing and maintaining code. > > No, it doesn't. I never had trouble with xawtv. I simply shipped a > private copy of videodev.h with the xawtv tarball (which allowed to > build it without hassle on 2.0.x systems which had no linux/videodev.h > yet). > Well, if it worked for you - good. I am not going that way, the versioning issues alone are reason enough. > > > You can't. But I don't see why this is a issue: The only thing a > > > application can handle easily are controls like contrast/hue where the > > > only thing a application needs to do is to map it to a GUI and let the > > > user understand and adjust stuff. The other stuff has way to much > > > non-trivial dependences, I doubt a application can blindly use new > > > driver features. > > > > Have you ever thought that the reason we only use these controls is > > because they are the only ones easy to implement now ? > > I doubt this is just a implementation issue. I don't believe in AI. > :)))) There is a thin line between real intellegence and clever algorithm. My bet is that a clever algorithm will suffice. > > > > > > * can cause problems with different compilers > > > > > > > > > > Then your compiler is buggy. > > > > > > > > No, I may have simply used different compilers for the kernel and the > > > > application. > > > > > > I doubt that. > > > > You are kidding, aren't you ? Most distributions now come out with egcs > > compiler 1.1.x "recommended for compiling" kernels and something newer. > > I doubt that this creates trouble, not that you might use different > compilers (I know RH ships or used to ship kgcc ...). > It might. I have no desire of debugging such things. > > > > What if the driver does not support counting dropped frames ? > > > > > > -EINVAL or something like that. > > > > But supports every other field. > > Can't happen, there is VIDIOC_G_PERF only for this performance > monitoring ... You mean you won't allow a driver like that. This is precisely the inflexibility I was talking about. > > > > > What if there is a control with no min/max limits ? > > > > > > Do you have a example? > > > > > > > Overlay color key - this is basically an RGB pixel value. > > 0x000000 => 0xffffff ? If you use alpha value too you'll need all 32bits. And imagine a GUI slider for that.. ;) > > > I would prefer minimum effort on the part of driver writer ;) At the > > moment all I see in bttv and my own code for select is looking on some > > already existing fields. Heck, the code is very similar to what needs to > > be checked for a blocking/non-blocking read. Why duplicate it ? > > bttv's poll function is very short for exactly this reason. Basically I > only have to call poll_wait with the (existing) wait queue which the IRQ > handler will wake up once the frame capture is finished. > Ohh, bttv _is_ good. I only argue against v4l :) Vladimir Dergachev > > Also, v4l select will not work (as far as I understand) when the driver is > > using memory-mapped buffers. > > v4l2 expects drivers to support select for the mmap() case too. > > Gerd > > -- > Netscape is unable to locate the server localhost:8000. > Please check the server name and try again. > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/