On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Devin Heitmueller <devin.heitmueller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Frank Dischner > <phaedrus961@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > While I'm at it, I thought I'd go ahead and make a patch to remove the > > top bits from the vsb table, but I've got a question about that. I > > think the first four entries are unnecessary. I'm pretty sure 8090 and > > 8091 have to do with the 8522's i2c controller and 4092 is a status > > register. I have no idea what 2005 is, but the new code would change > > it to A005 and I don't remember seeing either in any of the traces I > > did (though I never did a vsb trace). Is this correct or am I missing > > something? If I make a patch, can you or someone else test it for me? > > (can't get a signal here) > > Yeah, I noticed the 4092 entry. The "4" means it's a read operation > so it almost certainly shouldn't be in the table. I just haven't > taken the time to look closer at a Windows trace to see if it was > *really* a register read operation that got stuck into the table or > whether it was supposed to be a write operation. > > I haven't reviewed the VSB table yes, so I am not sure about the other entries. > > Devin > > -- >From my experience it seems that 2 in 0x2005 resets the 8522 demod. All demod register setting appear to be lost after accessing any registers in the 0x2xxx range (you really, just that bit needs to be set on a i2c bus access). I am a little surprised that 0x2000 is not written to the bus to for each modulation mode. Tim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
