From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:43745 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750892AbZIMPzG (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:55:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4AAD15A3.5080001@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:54:11 +0200 From: wk MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans Verkuil CC: linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Media controller: sysfs vs ioctl References: <200909120021.48353.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200909120021.48353.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? --Winfried