[linux-dvb] PATCH for adequate customization and attachment of dvb-pll.c

Michael Krufky mkrufky at linuxtv.org
Fri Jun 1 23:40:34 CEST 2007


Uwe Bugla wrote:
> Am Freitag, 1. Juni 2007 20:13 schrieben Sie:
>   
>> Uwe Bugla wrote:
>>     
>>> In current kernel 2.6.22-rc3 the frontend module dvb-pll.c is attached as
>>> a generic standard for all bt8xx-based DVB cards. This is no good
>>> solution.
>>>
>>> Fact is:
>>> The only bt8xx-based card taking advantage of that pll library is the
>>> DViCO FusionHDTV Lite 5. All other bt8xx-based DVB cards do not take any
>>> advantage of this pll library.
>>>
>>> The following patch corrects this problem without breaking any card
>>> support. For further SOBs I do appreciate the relevant persons Cced.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla at gmx.de>
>>>       
>> NACK.
>>
>> This hack is unacceptable.  Uwe, Please have patience 
>>     
>
> In fact I had enough patience, for a couple of months now.
> Even if you do not like it, it is a functionable compromise solution for now.
>   
Considering that this isn't actually a problem, your argument doesn't
hold water.  In the past, all dvb bridge drivers would depend on all
possible combinations of tuners and demod drivers...  Now that we have a
method for frontend driver selection, you are upset that you're unable
to deselect dvb-pll...  Well, you were never able to do so in the past,
so you've been making all this noise, screaming regression, but there is
no regression.
> There is no technical reason to nack it at all. If there is one, then it's 
> either a personal issue or a matter of design.
>   
Technical reason:  The lgdt330x driver DOES NOT depend on the dvb-pll
driver.  You might find various configurations where it is using a
silicon tuner , instead.  Your patch is a hack, and nothing else.
> The fact that you reacted so quickly prefares option 1 (i. e. personal issue).
>   
No, the fact that I reacted so quickly indicates that I read your email.
> And the tactical background of telling some other person to wait (or to be 
> patient) without offering an adequate time window for the WHEN is a gesture 
> of humiliation (I know that gesture already very well from Manu, and I do not 
> like it at all).
>   
Start signing my paychecks, and then I'll give you time windows for my
personal projects.
> Above that you were not the only one I was asking for a SOB. I only wanted to 
> try fair play (i. e. not overstepping anybody).
>   
I don't care who you asked.  I will not allow that cruft to be applied.
> Regards
>
> Uwe
>
> P. S.: To let somebody starve at the long arm: Ever heard what that means, 
> Mike? In fact I am not keen on flames, but I know people who provoke them by 
> their inacceptable gestures. And that's it what must become past in here.
>
> The other people reading this I would appreciate to test the two patches and 
> complain if I have done anything wrong. My door stays open for real technical 
> criticism.
> Thanks for reading :)
Anyway, You made a difference today, Uwe.  You did make me get up and
address the issue correctly.

Please see here for a more appropriate solution:

http://linuxtv.org/pipermail/linux-dvb/2007-June/018382.html


Feel free to test it -- I didnt yet.

-Mike




More information about the linux-dvb mailing list