Kenneth Aafl?y wrote: > On Friday 11 March 2005 15:16, Manu Abraham wrote: > >>>Exactly. >>>One would need another layer with a "Twinhan command protocol" and the card >>>driver only supplies the I2C, USB, etc. interface. This is kind of >>>overkill right now when all cards on the market with this protocol are >>>Bt878 based (or is the DVB-S USB adapter available?). >> >>I had thought about a different layer (but did not consider the USB >>devices), considering the new PCI devices having multiple sessions.. >> >>I was wondering how exactly to tackle that one.. since all the devices >>were common in one aspect. >> >>But at this point do we really need an additional layer ? As you said >>wouldn't it be an overkill ? >> >>I think the devices are outgrowing the API too fast than expected.. > > > I belive you should make the dst a new driver like the dvb-bt8xx one, > and move the twinhan stuff out of dvb-bt8xx into dst. As far as I can see, > they will then both depend on bt878. Make sense? > It sounds good, but i need some time to get that going, if i tried that at the moment the people who test it out will be even more confused, considering that they are really confused at present, which patch and so on, just to avoid that, the experimental branch i just started.. As soon as i am through with a stage of testing, i would do as you suggested.. Too many dependencies are always a headache.. I have created a twinhan-exp branch. Please do take a look at it. I just started on it, but you can see how it looks at the moment .. Your comments are welcome. Manu
