Klaus Schmidinger wrote: > 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 will go through the VDR code such that i have a better understanding, what could be done > 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 ;-). Yes, that is one possibility, the driver does use the High Level API.. Well let me just go through the code before i state anything .. I am not CPP expert, but i can surely read and somewhat understand CPP. Let me work it out a bit on that, i will get back on this.. > > And please post to the list and don't CC: me - this only tears threads > apart. Thanks, Manu
