Dominique Dumont wrote: > Manu Abraham <manu@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >>No that is wrong.. That was because Jamie originally made dummy >>frontend routines for the dst, and thereby somebody who moved the code >>around, without the idea, thought the dst was a frontend driver. Many >>people do think that the dst is a frontend. *This was actually wrong*. > > > So how would you define dst ? > DST is actually a card driver, the reason being the only interface of the driver is to the bt878 chip nothing more.. So any control to any part of the hardware has to go to the the bt878 only.. The bt878 is a bridge that forms an economical but efficient bridge. Many people feel the bt878 bridge is bad, but i feel that i was only due to a very bad driver.. Even the scan time is not too bad either, compared to other cards... A part of a post that i made sometime back .. That's since the card is a bttv based card from Twinhan, the original card (DVB-S) featuring a tuner from LG, and the tuner was called LG DST Tuner, and hence Twinhan people referred the "card", not the MCU or the tuner, internally in their driver as DST, standing for (D)igital (S)atellite (T)uner. > >>You cannot state that very explicitly considering all the >>details. It is, well in a way heavily tied up with the bt878. > > > Manu means this literally. From the code you can see that dst is > controlled through bt878 i2c bus and bt878 gpio pins. > I would prefer to have the driver have a similar naming convention as the hardware has, well i think that is the way most of the drivers are written.. Even the term GPIO is slightly misleading.. > >>>>I created a twinhan-exp branch on the CVS and plan to move the >>>>development over there .. > > > It might be a good idea not to change bt8xx trunk too much before this > branch is merged in the main tree. Lest the merging will be really > painful. > > BTW, are there many people interested in beta testing twinhan-exp > branch ? (I certainly am) > the more the people test it out, the better it gets.. > >>My patches are almost 8 months old, but people have been testing it >>out for 2 ~ 3 months with various good and bad results. > > > Yes. Bad then good ;-) > > >>What i intend to do as people test out the experimental code, i can >>keep merging it into MAIN. That was what even Johannes and Patrick >>were suggesting.. > > > Sounds good. > > >>Don't you feel that a working driver is more acceptable than a broken >>driver with nice code ? > > > At first yes. But, after that, a careful cleanup will be invaluable > for future maintenance or for newbies to understand your code. (But > then again, we'd need a flock of beta testers to validate the cleaned > up code) > I think without people testing it out it would be difficult.. Since the problem is not getting it running with the main categories or sub categories, but the different firmware versions.. For example, the VP-1030A it self has 3 basic firmware versions. Some have quirks some don't. I don't know exactly how all the quirks will be handled. There might be more also.. All the cards do follow a similar structure. So the only means to say the driver is working, is once any change has been made, it has to be tested out. Manu
