[linux-dvb] DVB-S2 API vs. HVR4000: When?

Manu Abraham abraham.manu at gmail.com
Fri Nov 2 21:28:52 CET 2007

Steven Toth wrote:
> Manu Abraham wrote:
>> Steven Toth wrote:
>>> Manu Abraham wrote:
>>>> Steven Toth wrote:
>>>>> simpler/smaller interface. I made reference to this in my first
>>>>> HVR4000
>>>>> patches where massive amounts of code were potentially being
>>>>> duplicated.
>>>> Please point out the duplication.
>>> At the time, the demod drivers had to provide a set_frontend() and
>>> set_params() ops method. That meant two entry points into every driver
>>> (with differing args), the same was true for many other entry points
>>> that took the new structures.
>> Btw, before you start complaining about other's code, It is always
>> better to have a look at your own code to have a feel where you are
>> standing.
>> Because of some of your changes we have had long arguments by Markus,
>> (on locking) well this was in kernel. What you are complaining is
>> something not even applied to the kernel and very much pre alpha.
>> Just to talk back on the same tongue.
> You asked for my feedback. So, I gave you all the feedback based on the
> last time I reviewed your code, I even said that these issue may already
> be fixed. (Explicitly opening myself up for attack - should you chose).

Ok, is it fixed now ? Why should i attack you if you commented on an issue ? 
If it is some nonsense then sure there is a reason.

> This review took place prior to you removing it from LinuxTV and you
> doing your own thing.

There was nothing called removing from LinuxTV. There were reasons 
why i moved my trees.

* Johannes expressed concern over crappy trees, such that it was a 
  hurdle for him to backup everything. No one paid heed to his request.
  (i did explain this earlier too)

  For me, at that time i had a local high end server, for which push was easy, 
  which the server had lot of free space.
  Not only the push time reduced for me, but on a small note, i did help by 
  removing whatever clutter i could.

  (For some people, it is the assumption that having too many trees in a 
   public place is like showing that they work on so many different things.
   Cheap publicity.)

* When you work with a tree (different people work different ways) a shell
  can be very handy to quickly export a patch, apply to another tree etc.

  Earlier the people around were easier to work with, before the merger of 
  the trees, look at any discussion, almost like clockwork, one idiot who 
  doesn't even have a single line of code, from V4L land talks crap about 
  the DVB developers.

* For the users also it was easy rather than looking at those countless crap 
  of repositories. Ask any normal sane user whether they feel comfortable.

But as usual, you were one of the chaps, who just looked at your own 
convenience or whatever you felt like.

> Why are we arguing Manu when we both want the same thing to happen, for
> multiproto to get traction?

I gave you the same options what i told Johannes, But you wanted to act
different. Is it not true ?

> Have I not always been polite in all of my offers of help, prior to my
> recent bitterness and/or sarcasm?

Were i any different from your state as you mentioned of, earlier ?

When you were struggling to get pilots working, did i got specs from one 
of my own clients to help you out how it worked for your case, did i not ? 
What changed ? Why did i have to help you ?

I just don't have anything specific issues to anyone, but what i receive, i 
just give it back in the same platter.

Do you think any of the people around will put in so much effort to help 
you so ?

It could have been that you don't find any value in all those help. 

> Look at the situation from an outsiders perspective. Whenever the
> subject of finishing the multiproto work comes up, the conversation
> never ends in a happy place.

Why does it happen that way ? You need to understand what's in there 
and what's not. Did i not explain clearly what's the TODO and COMPLETE 
things etc. Well, before you start arguing on a subject, you need to 
understand the subject. Otherwise it will sound exactly like a marketplace.
For this one needs to put in efforts to understand, nothing comes FOC.
When you think that let's have an argument and let's get ideas from 
that discussion, without any understanding of the same, many a times
it results in sparks.

As i said earlier there are more demods on the way, if we screw up, all 
those devices will be screwed up, like the DVB-T HP/LP. But this is 
something bigger than that. We are talking about 3 different modes, as 
far as i can think.

I will tell you why also. The DVB-S2 specification is damn crazy. It has 
backward compatibility stuff to incorporate for the old stuff, the current 
stuff and things yet to come. It is quite a hard specification.

When Johannes stated: handling multiple streams is as simple as setting 
a stream id, well it is not that i blame him, the specs look that way. There 
are couple of ways the same thing is done for example. You apply a 
wrong one and the API is screwed and you have to bear that brunt for 
a long time to come.

Even vendors themselves are not very sure how it is handled, but i have 
been promised help on the front. But when someone says it is too simple 
that which the vendors themselves are not sure about, then what should 
i say ? Think for yourself.

For example see the thread from Francesco, even the Windows driver could 
not tune to the same. It is with so much efforts that we got so much help 
and after doing that when someone out of the blue, for example like what 
you stated: what would you do if you were in my place. I just happened to 
react appropriately.

> I keep repeating myself when I'm say this: Nothing would make me happier
> than seeing multiproto in a test tree, where people inside (and outside)

What do you mean by a test tree ? It was stated earlier that another staging
tree is not at all necessary by Johannes. I didn't hear your voice at that time
when i argued with him. So why cry over spilt milk now ?

> of the LinuxTV team can contribute. It would be a significant step
> forward but whenever this subject is raised, regardless of how politely
> I try to ask, it never results in a good conversation.

The best to do is what Johannes suggested, i guess.
> I wish we could find a better way to communicate (and/or work together),
> for the good of everyone.


There will be clockwork, i know..
All flames > /dev/null


More information about the linux-dvb mailing list