On Friday 05 Aug 2005 13:48, Simo Kivim?ki wrote: > Andrew de Quincey wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 July 2005 16:39, Simo Kivim?ki wrote: > >>Andrew de Quincey wrote: > >>>Argh. there were reports before that the STV0297 driver didn't like > >>>QAM-128. I don't have access to any QAM128 signals (was testing with > >>>QAM64). > >> > >>Ok, any ideas how to get it work? I have only QAM128 signals here. > > > > Hmm, basically someone with access to a QAM256 signal has to fiddle with > > the code until it works :( > > Hi, > > Now I get the card tuned with QAM128 but it's quite slow. I increased > timeouts much (+5 s and +10 s for main lock). Latest CVS version is in use. > > And I changed: > stv0297_writereg_mask(state, 0x88, 0x08, 0x08); > to stv0297_writereg_mask(state, 0x88, 0x08, 0x00); > > as proposed in: > http://www.linuxtv.org/pipermail/linux-dvb/2005-June/002691.html > > Usually it gets nicely pass "equaliser full convergence" timeout but > main lock is more difficult to accomplish. > > Could you give any hints for further debug? Any register values that I > could try to change? I don't have access to any QAM128 signals > Is there any specifications somewhere that would help? How about > investigating what register values Windows driver uses. Is it for > example possible to read them from the i2c bus? OK, what is the reliability like for >QAM64 under windows? There is a way to sniff the i2c bus yes: http://warmcat.com/milksop/cheapi2c.html This is a very simple parallel port based i2c sniffer - the guy who gave me ssh access to his box in order to develop the new budget CI card used it on his windows PC, and the trace was invaluable.
