Steven Toth wrote: > Michael Krufky wrote: >> Steven Toth wrote: >> >>> Nicolas Will wrote: >>> >>>> Guys, >>>> >>>> The HVR4000 looks good on paper, but activity in not heavy, and it has >>>> that design flow that prevents it from being real useful (cannot do T >>>> and S at the same time). >>>> >>>> So I am looking for a dedicated DVB-S2 only solution in order to >>>> expand >>>> my HTPC. >>>> >>>> So what about the Hauppauge WinTV NOVA-HD-S2 card? The wiki if empty >>>> about this one, so I guess it is not the best choice... >>>> >>>> What would yo propose? >>>> >>>> >>> Darron Broad, another member of this ML is currently reviewing my >>> hvr3000 and hvr4000 patches to achieve the same goals. >>> >>> I'm personally very happy with the hvr4000 support, and the hvr3000 >>> approach to multiple frontends on a single bus, but no single tree >>> contains both, and it would likely be a large cumbersome patch to >>> submit for review for Mauro - so I'm reluctant to do that. >>> >>> My goal is to get basic hvr4000 DVB-S/S2 support merged first (after >>> multiproto is merged), then follow that with the 'multiple frontend >>> on a single bus' HVR3000 patches, thereby enabling DVB-T/S and S2 >>> all in one go. >>> >>> ... But were a way off, perhaps months from seeing multiproto accept >>> in v4l-dvb hg. >>> >>> If you want to take a shot at merging HVR3000 and 4000 for your own >>> use then atleast ping Darron via this ML, you're working on the same >>> thing. >>> >>> >> >> Steve, >> >> Why not merge DVB-S support only, into the master branch, so that >> users of that >> card can use the features of it that are NOT still up in the air? >> >> Then, it would only require a patch in order to enable the extra >> features, and >> lessen the load of those changes later on? >> >> > > What about a compiler directive (#fdef MULTIPROTO) or something > similar, meaning one driver can fit both models until multiproto > actually arrives? > > I can probably make that happen, which would give DVB-S only support, > which better than nothing. > > It won't bring DVB-T or DVB-S dynamic support though, but it is > probably acceptable to some people. I would be happy with that... It still would mean that you'd have to keep a separate tree, as you wont be able to add the multiproto core changes into the master branch, with or without the #ifdef, until Manu is done with it and it all gets reviewed. You should check with Mauro also, if he'll be friendly to this idea, as he would have to handle that with his gentree.pl script to prevent that stuff from going upstream. -Mike _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
