Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:01:36 +0200 | From | Rene Herman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] V4L1: make PMS not auto-grab port 0x250 |
| |
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.
| |