Christophe Thommeret wrote: >Le Jeudi 03 Novembre 2005 10:44, Manu Abraham a ?crit : > > >>Patrick Boettcher wrote: >> >> >>>As Ralph pointed out, there are applications out there, which are not >>>working with dvrX and demuxX (X >= 1). So in that case it's maybe >>>better to register a dvb_adapter per stream-input to be more >>>compatible with applications. >>> >>> >>It would be better to fix the broken applications, than to fix the >>applications that are broken in software. IMHO, this is a very bad >>workaround. >> >> > >I agree. For example, it would take about 10 minutes to fix Kaffeine. >So, just do it the more convenient/consistent way, and apps will follow. > > > For what i am working on, it will take some time. >>I remember somebody suggesting me to incorporate for a bug in an >>application's CI stack for CA_PMT length in the driver since the >>application was doing it wrong. >> >>IMHO, driver/kernelspace is not the place to fix userspace application >>bugs/design. >> >>I would say that the application needs to be fixed in that case , >>inorder to use the proper frontend/dvr/demux. I had been working a bit >>on a dual DVB-S card on the same approach. (But still struggling a bit >>on the tuner part a bit for now, since the same approach is used on both >>card types). ie, >> >>/dev/dvb/adapterX >> /dev/dvb/adapterX/frontend0 >> /dev/dvb/adapterX/demux0 >> /dev/dvb/adapterX/ca0 >> /dev/dvb/adapterX/dvr0 >> >> /dev/dvb/adapterX/frontend1 >> /dev/dvb/adapterX/demux1 >> /dev/dvb/adapterX/ca1 >> /dev/dvb/adapterX/dvr1 >> >> > > >AFAIU, an application could stop probing as soon as there is no X+1 (as for >frontendN+1). Can you confirm ? > > > IMHO, Yes. And there wouldn't be any adapter2 or adapter2/xyz, if adapter1 (the same case for adapter0 too) doesn't exist. Therefore if adapter1 doesn't exist, there shouldn't be any need to probe for adapter 2,3, etc, assuming that adapter0 is the only 1 card that is present. Manu
