On 07/16/2011 06:53 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
On 16.07.2011 17:44, Antti Palosaari wrote:
On 07/16/2011 06:40 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
On 16.07.2011 16:54, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 16-07-2011 11:16, Antti Palosaari escreveu:
On 07/16/2011 03:25 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 15-07-2011 20:41, Antti Palosaari escreveu:
On 07/15/2011 08:01 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
On 15.07.2011 15:25, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 15-07-2011 05:26, Ralph Metzler escreveu:
At the same time I want to add delivery system properties to
support everything in one frontend device.
Adding a parameter to select C or T as default should help in most
cases where the application does not support switching yet.
If I understood well, creating a multi-delivery type of frontend
for
devices like DRX-K makes sense for me.
We need to take some care about how to add support for them, to
avoid
breaking userspace, or to follow kernel deprecating rules, by
adding
some legacy compatibility glue for a few kernel versions. So,
the sooner
we add such support, the better, as less drivers will need to
support
a "fallback" mechanism.
The current DVB version 5 API doesn't prevent some userspace
application
to change the delivery system[1] for a given frontend. This
feature is
actually used by DVB-T2 and DVB-S2 drivers. This actually
improved the
DVB API multi-fe support, by avoiding the need of create of a
secondary
frontend for T2/S2.
Userspace applications can detect that feature by using
FE_CAN_2G_MODULATION
flag, but this mechanism doesn't allow other types of changes like
from/to DVB-T/DVB-C or from/to DVB-T/ISDB-T. So, drivers that
allow such
type of delivery system switch, using the same chip ended by
needing to
add two frontends.
Maybe we can add a generic FE_CAN_MULTI_DELIVERY flag to
fe_caps_t, and
add a way to query the type of delivery systems supported by a
driver.
[1]
http://linuxtv.org/downloads/v4l-dvb-apis/FE_GET_SET_PROPERTY.html#DTV-DELIVERY-SYSTEM
I don't think it's necessary to add a new flag. It should be
sufficient
to add a property like "DTV_SUPPORTED_DELIVERY_SYSTEMS", which
should be
read-only and return an array of type fe_delivery_system_t.
Querying this new property on present kernels hopefully fails with a
non-zero return code. in which case FE_GET_INFO should be used to
query
the delivery system.
In future kernels we can provide a default implementation, returning
exactly one fe_delivery_system_t for unported drivers. Other drivers
should be able to override this default implementation in their
get_property callback.
One thing I want to say is that consider about devices which does
have MFE using two different *physical* demods, not integrated to
same silicon.
If you add such FE delsys switch mechanism it needs some more glue
to bind two physical FEs to one virtual FE. I see much easier to
keep all FEs as own - just register those under the same adapter
if FEs are shared.
In this case, the driver should just create two frontends, as
currently.
There's a difference when there are two physical FE's and just one FE:
with 2 FE's, the userspace application can just keep both opened at
the same time. Some applications (like vdr) assumes that all multi-fe
are like that.
Does this mean demod is not sleeping (.init() called)?
When there's just a single FE, but the driver needs to "fork" it in
two
due to the API troubles, the driver needs to prevent the usage of both
fe's, either at open or at the ioctl level. So, applications like vdr
will only use the first frontend.
Lets take example. There is shared MFE having DVB-S, DVB-T and
DVB-C. DVB-T and DVB-C are integrated to one chip whilst DVB-S have
own.
One remark: In my previous mail I assumed that in your example DVB-S and
either DVB-C or DVB-T can be tuned simultaneously, i.e. there are two
antenna connectors and two tuners in addition to the two demod chips. If
this assumtion was wrong, then of course approach 2 is the sane one, not
approach 3.
My assumption was that frontends are using shared HW resources for
reason or the other and thus only one FE can be used at the time.
When there is no shared resources it should be implemented as multiple
adapters.
Currently it will shown as:
Let me name the approaches:
Approach 1)
* adapter0
** frontend0 (DVB-S)
** frontend1 (DVB-T)
** frontend2 (DVB-C)
Approach 2)
Your new "ideal" solution will be:
* adapter0
** frontend0 (DVB-S/T/C)
Approach 3)
What really happens (mixed old and new):
* adapter0
** frontend0 (DVB-S)
** frontend1 (DVB-T/C)
What I've said before is that approach 3 is the "ideal" solution.
It does not look very good to offer this kind of mixed solution,
since it is possible to offer only one solution for userspace, new
or old, but not mixing.
Good point.
There's an additional aspect to handle: if a driver that uses
approach 1, a conversion
to either approach 2 or 3 would break existing applications that
can't handle with
the new approach.
There's a 4th posibility: always offering fe0 with MFE capabilities,
and creating additional fe's
for old applications that can't cope with the new mode.
For example, on a device that supports
DVB-S/DVB-S2/DVB-T/DVB-T2/DVB-C/ISDB-T, it will be shown as:
Approach 4) fe0 is a frontend "superset"
*adapter0
*frontend0 (DVB-S/DVB-S2/DVB-T/DVB-T2/DVB-C/ISDB-T) - aka: FE superset
*frontend1 (DVB-S/DVB-S2)
*frontend2 (DVB-T/DVB-T2)
*frontend3 (DVB-C)
*frontend4 (ISDB-T)
fe0 will need some special logic to allow redirecting a FE call to
the right fe, if
there are more than one physical frontend bound into the FE API.
I'm starting to think that (4) is the better approach, as it won't
break legacy
applications, and it will provide an easier way for new applications
to control
the frontend with just one frontend.
Approach 4 would break existing applications, because suddenly they'd
have to cope with an additional device. It would be impossible for an
existing application to tell whether frontend0 (from your example) was a
real device or not.
Approach 2 doesn't make any sense to me.
I like approach 1 since it is very simple interface. Secondly I like
approach 2. I think that more API issue than technical.
The only sane approach is 3, because it creates one device node per
demod chip. As Ralph already suggested, an easy way to not break
applications is to add a module parameter which selects the default mode
(DVB-C or DVB-T in Antti's example). One could also write a small
command line application to switch modes independently from VDR et al.
After all, you cannot connect both a DVB-C cable and a DVB-T antenna at
the same time, so the vast majority of users won't ever want to switch
modes at all.
You are wrong, actually you can. At least here in Finland some cable
networks offers DVB-T too.
I know that there are cable operators which use DVB-T, but they don't
use DVB-C simultaneously. This wouldn't make sense, unless they didn't
want their customers to receive their signals.
Hmmm, after all that's not big issue but they send both DVB-C and DVB-T
muxes in same network. Most likely to offers some basic channels for
customers who does not have DVB-C capable receiver. So setting desired
FE to DVB-C mode blocks reception of DVB-T channels.
regards
Antti
--
http://palosaari.fi/
--
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
