VDR HLCI support ; was Re: [vdr] Twinhan VisionPlus DVB with CI: CAM doesn't support link layer interface [Fwd: Re: [linux-dvb] Re: A suggestion required...]
Hi,
In case somebody is interested in adding support to VDR a reference to the discussion that we had earlier on this aspect.
If somebody needs to add support, applications that can be referenced at the moment are [1] ca_zap in dvb-apps [2] VLC (CVS version)
If some body needs some help on this, would be glad to help on the specifics.
Manu
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [linux-dvb] Re: A suggestion required... Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:07:33 +0100 From: Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de Organization: CadSoft Computer GmbH To: linux-dvb linux-dvb@linuxtv.org References: 4232DB9D.6060601@kromtek.com 20050312172423.GD16421@linuxtv.org 4233265C.5090707@cadsoft.de 423329B9.8010009@kromtek.com
Manu Abraham wrote:
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
Manu Abraham wrote:
I have been working on the Twinhan and Twinhan clone card drivers, i mean both FTA and CI based ones..
The FTA cards do look like most standard cards, whereas the CI based cards are a bit different from others..
The reason why the CI based cards do differ from the others is that there is no Transport Layer visible to the driver, but does exists in some form in the Firmware, and nothing can be done about it ..
So here i am at a point, ready to write a layer/library that would make it more adaptable to DVB applications..
Since you Cc'd Klaus: VDR already contains a CI library, and I guess he's not eager to include another one. It would be nice if you could point out to him what needs to be changed in VDR to support Twinhan-style CI, or maybe even send him a patch. But you better sort that out on the vdr mailing list.
Johannes
I wouldn't like to implement a special method of CI handling just
That would mean i have to make my own hardware ? Damn..
for one particular hardware. You should make the interface behave
It is not one single hardware, but it is an entire family of cards..
just like the existing one - then you can use VDR right out of the box.
It is not a special method, but only thing is that everything is in Application layer, rather than Transport layer. I was not looking at using it straight out of the box..
Anyway, thanks for replying..
Manu
Maybe you should describe in more detail where exactly the difference is with respect to how VDR's CI handling is done now. If it just means that everything VDR does in its cCiTransport* stuff is not needed for your card, I guess it shouldn't be too much trouble to handle things on the cCiSession level. What would be necessary then, though, would be some of of having the driver API tell the application which method to use (maybe that's already there and I just didn't use it ;-).
And please post to the list and don't CC: me - this only tears threads apart.
Klaus
_______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Let me support this message with some notes:
- tv is moving to scrambled (Germany), hence more people will need CI interfaced cards - Twinhan cards are cloned by many manufacturers: Technisat, Pinnacle, DigitalRise, Annubis Typhoon etc. - The cards are cheap and, provided one has a good signal strength, they have good picture quality. - As I said in another message: you need only one PCI slot. - What's a card with ci support without VDR? Nothing. Ever tried to play dvb with mplayer or xine? Or even worse, mythtv? Hey, there is after all only one system for TV on linux!
If I could code myself....
Best,
Maarten Wisse
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 21:16, Manu Abraham wrote:
Hi,
In case somebody is interested in adding support to VDR a reference to the discussion that we had earlier on this aspect.
If somebody needs to add support, applications that can be referenced at the moment are [1] ca_zap in dvb-apps [2] VLC (CVS version)
If some body needs some help on this, would be glad to help on the specifics.
Manu
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [linux-dvb] Re: A suggestion required... Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:07:33 +0100 From: Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de Organization: CadSoft Computer GmbH To: linux-dvb linux-dvb@linuxtv.org References: 4232DB9D.6060601@kromtek.com 20050312172423.GD16421@linuxtv.org 4233265C.5090707@cadsoft.de 423329B9.8010009@kromtek.com
Manu Abraham wrote:
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
Manu Abraham wrote:
I have been working on the Twinhan and Twinhan clone card drivers, i mean both FTA and CI based ones..
The FTA cards do look like most standard cards, whereas the CI based cards are a bit different from others..
The reason why the CI based cards do differ from the others is that there is no Transport Layer visible to the driver, but does exists in some form in the Firmware, and nothing can be done about it ..
So here i am at a point, ready to write a layer/library that would make it more adaptable to DVB applications..
Since you Cc'd Klaus: VDR already contains a CI library, and I guess he's not eager to include another one. It would be nice if you could point out to him what needs to be changed in VDR to support Twinhan-style CI, or maybe even send him a patch. But you better sort that out on the vdr mailing list.
Johannes
I wouldn't like to implement a special method of CI handling just
That would mean i have to make my own hardware ? Damn..
for one particular hardware. You should make the interface behave
It is not one single hardware, but it is an entire family of cards..
just like the existing one - then you can use VDR right out of the box.
It is not a special method, but only thing is that everything is in Application layer, rather than Transport layer. I was not looking at using it straight out of the box..
Anyway, thanks for replying..
Manu
Maybe you should describe in more detail where exactly the difference is with respect to how VDR's CI handling is done now. If it just means that everything VDR does in its cCiTransport* stuff is not needed for your card, I guess it shouldn't be too much trouble to handle things on the cCiSession level. What would be necessary then, though, would be some of of having the driver API tell the application which method to use (maybe that's already there and I just didn't use it ;-).
And please post to the list and don't CC: me - this only tears threads apart.
Klaus
linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
-
Maarten Wisse -
Manu Abraham