On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 16:29 +0400, Manu Abraham wrote: > Perceval Anichini wrote: > > Well, that's why I think 'tuner-' is indeed a quite > > reductive prefix ... > > > > Maybe we shall have a single file by _chip_ then ??? > > > > For instance : > > lnb-disecq/lnbp21.h > > lnb-disecq/lnbp13.h > > > > "sec/" might sound better, since who knows what might come later on .. > > > tuners/bsbe1.h > > tuners/bsrv2.h > > demod/stv0299.h > > demod/... > > > > And then a frontend is the sum of a lnbp chip, a demod, a tuner : > > exactly as in the DVB API documentation... ? > > > > Sounds nice. The only problem is to get people to agree on such a huge > change, eventhough cosmetic. It looks quite meaningful, atleast to myself. > > What about silicon tuners ? They have sec/(tuner)rf stages + pll /demod > everything in one single chip. Then there are split ones, rf stage + pll > in one chip, demod + sec in another You're right. Trying to classify chips like this is too restrictive. Well, as soon as it seems not possible to create a generic way to classify, maybe a single dir 'chips/' would be the good way... Good news, that is what we have, even if the name of the directory is 'frontend'... Maybe a README file in the frontend/ dir with a simple array Chip name/capacities would be sufficient ??? Perceval. _______________________________________________ linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
