Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005, Steve Toth wrote: > >>>>> Of course the current method used to distinguish the device >>>>> types in VDR (FE_QPSK = DVB-S, FE_QAM = DVB-C and FE_OFDM = DVB-T) >>>>> wouldn't work any more, so other criteria might be necessary. >>>>> But basically a DVB-S device would be just one single device >>>>> (with only one single frontend), whether it can only do the >>>>> "old" DVB-S, or both DVB-S and DVB-S2. >>>>> >>>>> At least that's how I would hope this would behave in the future. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> afaik dvb-s2 is backwards compatible to dvb-s >>>> >>>> >> Correct. >> >> For what it's worth, on the multiple frontend issue (not s2 related)... >> A board will appear with some or all of the following features before >> you know it. Analogue PAL, DVB-T and DVB-S on a single bridge. >> Personally, it's more logical to me two have two different frontends, >> one for S and one for T. Anything else feels like a hack. >> > > IMHO: > Think of a frontend as a device which outputs an MPEG-2 TS. > The number of TSs you can receive simultaneously determines > the number of frontend devices. > > Interesting. That's the exact opposite of what I've always thought of as a front end. A front end to me means an implementation of a tuner/demod and/or stream. So, for example - even though a hardware products is only capable of delivering one physical stream at once, it may have two frontends which expose the two different behaviors in the same design. >> Analogue tends to take care of itself through v4l, this probably should >> change longer term. >> > > Analog and digital TV with one tuner is not optimally integrated, but > I don't think you should replace v4l with something else because of this. > There isn't that much left to do. > > I agree on both counts. I also agree that having a unified tuner model would be good idea.
