On 05/04/2011 04:05 PM, Issa Gorissen wrote: > From: Andreas Oberritter <obi@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> It wouldn't have multiple adapters numbers either. > > What do you mean by they shouldn't have mulitple adapters numbers ? Multiple > WinTV-CI devices should have distinct node parents, ie > /dev/dvb/adapter[01]/<node> I wrote "wouldn't", not "shouldn't". I'm fine with it. >>> With the transmitted keys changed frequently (at least for viaccess), > what's >>> the point in supporting offline descrambling when it will not work > reliably >>> for all ? >> >> The reliability of offline descrambling depends on the network operators >> policy. So while it won't be useful for everybody in the world, it might >> well be useful to all customers of certain operators. >> >>> As for descrambling multiple tv channels from different transponders with > only >>> one cam, this is already possible. An example is what Digital Devices > calls >>> MTD (Multi Transponder Decrypting). But this is CAM dependent, some do > not >>> support it. >> >> What's the point if it doesn't work reliably for everybody? ;-) > > > Well, isn't it easier to change a CAM than an operator ? For many of us in > France/Belgium, you might even have no choice at all for the operator. Again it depends on the operator, whether getting a working CAM at all is possible, putting aside that there's no guarantee that it would work with "MTD". But I really don't mind. See the smiley. I was just referring to your similar question. I wasn't going to tell that foo was better than or even related to bar, but just that foo is a good feature for many people. I also consider bar a good feature. >>>> Why don't you just create a new device, e.g. ciX, deprecate the use of >>>> caX for CI devices, inherit CI-related existing ioctls from the CA API, >>>> translate the existing read and write funtions to ioctls and then use >>>> read and write for TS I/O? IIRC, Ralph suggested something similar. I'm >>>> pretty sure this can be done without too much code and in a backwards >>>> compatible way. >>> >>> >>> I'm open to this idea, but is there a consensus on this big API change ? >>> (deprecating ca device) If yes, I will try to prepare something. >> >> The existing API could be copied to linux/dvb/ci.h and then simplified >> and reviewed. >> > > As I said, if you can create a consensus behind your idea, then I will try to > prepare something. I don't think this is going to happen, as nobody really seems to care (me included). I was just pointing out ways that I consider more likely to succeed. Regards, Andreas -- 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
