Re: [PATCH] V4L1: make PMS not auto-grab port 0x250

[Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl>]

On 09-08-08 22:46, Alan Cox wrote:

> I have a PMS card. It was the hot technology of 199x about the same
> time as doom came out. I'm probably the only person who still has one
> ;)

Tsss. Lots of people still have doom...

> I'm going to NAK this however because passing in a port is a really
> dumb interface. The PMS card can only be at port 0x250 so if you load
> it there is no doubt and confusion involved.
> 
> The code is fine, the behaviour is correct. Ingo should fix his
> config stuff.

He already did. The deep legacy ones such as this though I myself feel 
are better of just not doing what they do.

> Just apply a tiny bit of rational thought here. There is exactly ONE 
> Ingo.

And as you say yourself -- close to exactly 1 person who still has this 
hardware and closer still to 0 who use it. Really, you contradict yourself:

> He's a smart cookie and can add exception lists to his tester. There
> are millions of users some of whom are brilliant, others are not
> computer wizards. The code should be optimised for them not for Ingo
> - Ingo is an optimisation for the special case not the normal 
> workload!

Millions of users using PMS? I expect you are still going to NAK this 
anyway out of a theoretical standpoint but please stop contradicting 
yourself ;-)

We know this driver breaks the boot during useful kernel work. We know 
that changing it has about a 0.0001% percent change of mattering to 
anyone and then only as long as all those person can't be bothered to 
setup a value in his modprobe.conf.

Now, mind you, I don't care really deeply or anything but this is the 
second time today that I get a comment that places something theoretical 
over something actual. I had deluded myself into thinking that was not 
the way things were done here. Silly me.

Rene.