Peter Hettkamp wrote: > - This was brought to my attention, and I created a patch for it. I had one > problem when creating the patch: The fact that diseqc_send_burst is a > separate ioctl from diseqc_send_message obviously means that an application > can choose to call none, either one or both ioctls in any order. The order is determined by the DiSEqC spec, but apps can chosse to use both or only one of them. > The cx24110 > chip, however, knows only a "start_diseqc" sequence, which includes voltage > selection, tone burst (aka Mini-diseqc), DiSEqC message and continuous 22kHz > signal all in one. > > - So, I decided to try: when send_burst is called, do a start_diseqc > sequence /without/ the DiSEqC message (set bit 2 of register 0x77). > > - when send_message is called, do a start_diseqc sequence /with/ message but > without burst (clear bit 2 of 0x77) Sounds good. > - for some reason or other, the line cx24110_writereg(state, 0x77, > rv&~0x04); in cx24110_send_diseqc_msg seems to have mutated into > cx24110_writereg(state, 0x77, rv|0x04); in the process, which suppresses the > sending of DiSEqC messages altogether. So maybe the problem would be fixed by just changing that line? It needs to fixed anyway, if I read you correctly. > - As an aside, my email address changed, the old t-online address will cease > to exist one of those days. Could somebody please update my email address > within the source? OK, will do so. Johannes
