Barry, I drew the line at porting the xc3028 tuner module from mcentral.de into v4l-dvb, so no didn't solve the firmware issues. If you know what you are doing it should be trivial work - just linking in yet another tuner module and then calling it like all the others. For me because I don't know the code well it would take a week or two. The other issue is that with the state of relationship between Markus Rechberger and the community I don't want to be in the middle of that. Cheers Paul barry bouwsma wrote: > --- On Sat, 9/13/08, Paul Chubb <paulc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> around 2.6.22. At some stage the functionality in videobuf_core.c was >> replaced by video-buf-dvb.c. This meant that when you compile against >> the 2.6.22 headers it works fine but still loads the videobuf_core >> module from the previous module set. Once you get to 2.6.24 it still >> loads videobuf_core, however now you get a lot of symbol issues when it >> loads and ultimately the driver for the card didn't work. This was >> > > Ah, thanks. I've seen this (in the list) often and ignored it > as a newbie error. (I ignore most things anyway) > > Now I'm trying to hack* around something comparable in a diff > which has strangely disappeared from my screen, but may be > videodev.c --> v4l2-dev.c which probably will/has cause(d) > issues. > > * `hack' should be translated as, looking at the diffs, wishing > I had had more sleep, even if it had meant missing all the doku on > Chairman Humph (for those in the know) that I should have instead > recorded for later viewing, and wondering if a `make-it-compile' > hack is enough... Am I making sense? Should I sleep? > > > >> 2) The v4l-dvb tree has complex firmware loading logic in tuner-xc2028.c >> >> So either could be fixed, and I fixed the first. I could have fixed the >> second by investing more time. >> > > Just to be clear -- did you fix the firmware issue, or the issue > with migration of, and changes to, source files, which in my > hum^Wignorant opinion, would be the more difficult one in general? > > > >> But I don't think that is why people talk >> about incompatibility between the two. >> > > It's helpful to me, nonetheless. I am sympathetic to the fork, > as my `production' (were I to produce anything; in reality, I > mean that it's been several years operating with only power > failures requiring attention, otherwise generally running with > full CPU load) machine is 2.6.14 and has loads of hacks which > I need to apply to a more recent kernel, should I find a stable > one (perhaps the hardware of my development machine is suspect > here, as I now have nearly a week uptime on the same kernel > which would typically freeze/panic within a few hours -- watch > it wedge solid before I can send this, again), and much of the > code which I've hacked (UFS large fragment size filesystem, > ISA ethernet and others) has or may have suffered substantial > rewriting since I got it working... That second sentence was long... > > > thanks for your feedback! > barry bouwsma > > > > > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
