Hi Jean, Mauro and all, Am Dienstag, den 02.02.2010, 08:54 +0100 schrieb Jean Delvare: > Hi Hermann, > > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:47:53 +0100, hermann pitton wrote: > > Hi Jean, > > > > Am Montag, den 01.02.2010, 10:56 +0100 schrieb Jean Delvare: > > > Hi Hermann, > > > > > > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:16:35 +0100, hermann pitton wrote: > > > > For now, I only faked a P7131 Dual with a broken IR receiver on a 2.6.29 > > > > with recent, you can see that gpio 0x40000 doesn't go high, but your > > > > patch should enable the remote on that P7131 analog only. > > > > > > I'm not sure why you had to fake anything? What I'd like to know is > > > simply if my first patch had any negative effect on other cards. > > > > because I simply don't have that Asus My Cinema analog only in question. > > > > To recap, you previously announced a patch, tested by Daro, claiming to > > get the remote up under auto detection for that device and I told you > > having some doubts on it. > > My first patch was not actually tested by Daro. What he tested was > loading the driver with card=146. At first I thought it was equivalent, > but since then I have realized it wasn't. That's the reason why the > "Tested-by:" was turned into a mere "Cc:" on my second and third > patches. > > > Mauro prefers to have a fix for that single card in need for now. > > > > Since nobody else cares, "For now", see above, I can confirm that your > > last patch for that single device should work to get IR up with auto > > detection in delay after we change the card such late with eeprom > > detection. > > > > The meaning of that byte in use here is unknown to me, we should avoid > > such as much we can! It can turn out to be only some pseudo service. > > > > If your call for testers on your previous attempt, really reaches some > > for some reason, I'm with you, but for now I have to keep the car > > operable within all such snow. > > That I understand. What I don't understand is: if you have a > SAA7134-based card, why don't you test my second patch (the one moving > the call to saa7134_input_init1 to saa7134_hwinit2) on it, without > faking anything? This would be a first, useful data point. > sorry, the snow fall did not stop and we will need trucks next day to get it out of town. No place left. I did not reread any single line of code until now, but told you that Roman has tested a equivalent patch on his P7131_ANALOG already and I can confirm that it also had no side effects on a FlyVideo3000 card=2. For now, I would at least need some time to see, if input_init can be decoupled from all other hardware init, what you seem to suggest, and looking closer to Mauro's concerns. Thought you are asking for some test with a i2c remote next to confirm your analysis there. No such card in any machine currently, but can be done. Cheers, Hermann -- 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
