>linuxtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> linuxtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> >>>> There seem to be quite a few problems getting TwinHan VP1030 etc >>>> Conditional Access Module working properly. >>>> >>>> The LinuxTV wiki says they dont work (mostly) and so do various >>>> other application writers (eg. mythtv, videolan, etc). >>>> >>> The information on the Wiki is a bit outdated. Both the applications you >>> mentioned do have support. >>> >> >> Ahem ... they may have support, but the applications do/did *not* work >> properly with my irdeto CAM. >> >> I know this because of the extensive patching that was required to >> make them work! >> >> > >It does work for me, many people are using it successfully. FYI, I am >using an Irdeto module >For others too it seems to work okay with other applications too as well >as ca_zap. Search for a thread like this.. > > Re: High level CI support in MythTV > >Regarding Videolan, the relevant person who added support may comment. Are you sure you are using a TwinHan VP1030A and not some other card? Very definitely did not work for me. I can run original ca_zap and it doesn't work. I can run modified ca_zap and it does work. What am I to make of your comment? > >>> Somebody should update the info on the Wiki in regards to the relevant >>> status. >>> >>> Regarding MythTV, http://threebit.net/mail-archive/mythtv-dev/msg01711.html >>> >>> >> >> But I don't have any compile problems and I haven't applied a patch >> multiple times ... what exactly is the revelance? >> > >[..] > >Explained above > Really? You link only relates to somebody having a problem compiling a kernel module because he applied patch twice. How is that relevant, and how does "Explained above" explain the relevance? _______________________________________________ linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
