Manu, Gerd, and anyone else that can offer some insight-
In troubleshooting the FusionHDTV5 Lite bug last week, Ricardo noticed
the following in bttv-cards.c:
if (0 == tda9887 && 0 == bttv_tvcards[btv->c.type].has_dvb &&
bttv_I2CRead(btv, I2C_TDA9887, "TDA9887") >=0)
tda9887 = 1;
if (tda9887)
request_module("tda9887");
This I found to be very strange... When I first programmed this board,
tda9887 was automatically being detected. Somehow, the code above wasnt
working correctly, but it is now.
This is a mystery to me, but regardless.....
WHY do we prevent tda9887 autodetection on bttv boards with DVB
capabilities?
I did some research... Gerd committed this change on /Wed Oct 6 13:45:14
2004 UTC/ ... Unfortunately, his commit message was totally unrelated to
the changes made:
- cx88: AverTV Studio 303 (M126) fixes.
http://linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/v4l-kernel/linux/drivers/media/video/bttv-cards.c?root=v4l&r1=1.27&r2=1.28
FusionHDTV5 Lite is a hybrid board, and it depends on tda9887 in order
to deliver NTSC video.
Ricardo applied the following, and it fixed the FusionHDTV5 Lite bug:
http://linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/v4l-kernel/linux/drivers/media/video/bttv-cards.c?root=v4l&r1=1.97&r2=1.98
(Thanks again, RC)
However, I'd like to get to the root of this... Can we remove "0 ==
bttv_tvcards[btv->c.type].has_dvb &&" from the check?
Does tda9887 autodetection cause problems on other DVB boards???
I can only assume that Gerd did this back then, because there weren't
many (if any) hybrid NTSC/ATSC boards around... Maybe Gerd thought that
it was pointless to attempt to probe tda9887, assuming that it would
never be necessary?
Things are okay as-is, but I wonder if this should be changed.
Any ideas/feedback?
Regards,
Michael Krufky
