Hi, hermann pitton wrote: > Am Freitag, den 03.02.2006, 15:55 +0000 schrieb Mike Ferenduros: > >>Hi, >> >>Ah, the tuner module detects the mt2050 ok if I load tda9887 first, thanks >>for the hint. >> >>Digital tuning is still broken though...there are no i2c problems I can see, >>and the mt2050 says it's tuning to the right frequency, but nothing happens >>beyond that. > > > Interesting, we had lots of changes in the tuner area, but maybe the > problem is somewhere else. After you try digital does the analog still > work then? > > >>Could anyone provide a log of a 300i doing a successful scan? > > > Maybe Rainer can. The next suspect would be the TS interface then and > one can enable debug for video-buf-dvb and ts_debug=1 for saa7134, see > "modinfo saa7134" for further parameters. The changes here are _very_ > limited and Hartmut discussed them with Gerd, but I don't know if the > saa7134 chip has been tested explicitly, since we are all mostly on > saa7135 and 7131e, if it matters at all. > > Since Rainer says 20050627 works, there are only > >>http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/v4l-dvb/linux/drivers/media/video/saa7134/saa7134-ts.c?root=v4l&r1=1.14&r2=1.15 > > which Gerd explicitly changed the other way round previously for 300i > and > >>http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/v4l-dvb/linux/drivers/media/video/saa7134/saa7134-ts.c?root=v4l&r1=1.16&r2=1.17 > > But you might have a look yourself with viewcvs. > For the few changes in video-buf-dvb I assume no problems > and these here are also only shots in the dark, since you seem to have > no visible error messages. Strange. > I really don't think the problem lies in the TS interface. Even if it were broken, this would not become visible before the channel decoder reports lock. As far as i understood, it doesn't. This is a just an idea: The tuning procedure is "somewhat funny". The MT352 expects to control the tuner via its own I2C master. This is not the case on this board. The tuning procedure *might* be timing critical due to this. In the suspected time frame, i added an msleep call in saa7134-i2c.c, line 311 to ensure a sufficient gap between 2 messages. From the physical point of view, a udelay(10) is sufficient but to my understanding, delay calls should be avoided. You might try to replace the msleep(1) by a udelay(10). Maybe this helps. Hartmut
