[linux-dvb] PATCH for adequate customization and attachment of dvb-pll.c
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
>>> 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>
>> 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
> 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
> 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.
> 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
> 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:
Feel free to test it -- I didnt yet.
More information about the linux-dvb