Re: [linux-dvb] [PATCH] Userspace tuner

[Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@gmail.com>]

Hello Markus,

Markus Rechberger wrote:

> The main discussion in this thread was about drivers in userspace
> are bad because the API will allow binary drivers. The guy
> who works for Hauppauge (again I also have good contacts
> at Hauppauge Europe) writes it's bad - for no technical reason.


AFAICS, Steven raised the same thoughts what i had.


> If someone points out that it is bad (after reading the whole thread)
> why don't we put X.org, bash, well everything into the kernel?


I am not saying that userspace is bad. In fact i am all for userspace,
_if_ there is much of a complication. For example we have had largely
complex devices. You might like to read this thread a while back.

This was the reason why we started up libdvbapi/mti (For those who don't
know what it is, libdvbapi/mti is a userspace approach for having device
support in userspace with complicated tuning algorithms with a lot of
calculations)

http://search.gmane.org/?query=Re%3A+%5BRFC%5D+Userspace+extensions%2C+was+Re%3A+%5Blinux-dvb%5D+%5Bpatch%5D+Add+support+for+different+tuning+algorithms&author=&group=linux.drivers.dvb&sort=relevance&DEFAULTOP=and&query=

For that demodulator and a successor for the same, i had finally moved
the same to in kernel with a lot of trouble. Maybe it is not as precise
as it should have been.

But what i mean is that we should use such approaches if there needs to
be a heavy valid reason and if there are many more devices going that
way, we should definitely move to userspace. Maybe the userspace idea is
a bit still immature.

That said, i don't see any such complexities with the XC3028


Manu