Mauro, comments in-line. On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Em 30-09-2011 15:41, Lutz Sammer escreveu: >> On 09/30/11 19:07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> Em 29-09-2011 18:22, Lutz Sammer escreveu: >>>> Another version of >>>> http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6307 >>>> http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6510 >>>> which was superseded or rejected, but I don't know why. >>> >>> Probably because of the same reason of this patch [1]: >>> >>> patch -p1 -i patches/lmml_8023_v2_stb0899_fix_slow_and_not_locking_dvb_s_transponder_s.patch --dry-run -t -N >>> patching file drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c >>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 358. >>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c.rej >>> drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> I'll mark this one as rejected, as it doesn't apply upstream[2]. >>> >>> [1] http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/8023/ >>> [2] at tree/branch: git://linuxtv.org/media_tree.git staging/for_v3.2 >>> >>> Please test if the changes made upstream to solve a similar trouble fixes your issue. >>> If not, please rebase your patch on the top of it and resend. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mauro >>>> >>>> In stb0899_status stb0899_check_data the first read of STB0899_VSTATUS >>>> could read old (from previous search) status bits and the search fails >>>> on a good frequency. >>>> >>>> With the patch more transponder could be locked and locks about 2* faster. > > Manu, > > Could you please review this one-line patch? > > >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lutz Sammer<johns98@xxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c | 1 + >>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c b/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c >>>> index d70eee0..8eca419 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c >>>> @@ -358,6 +358,7 @@ static enum stb0899_status stb0899_check_data(struct stb0899_state *state) >>>> else >>>> dataTime = 500; >>>> >>>> + stb0899_read_reg(state, STB0899_VSTATUS); /* clear old status bits */ >>>> stb0899_write_reg(state, STB0899_DSTATUS2, 0x00); /* force search loop */ >>>> while (1) { >>>> /* WARNING! VIT LOCKED has to be tested before VIT_END_LOOOP */ > Please add in these comments, in case you want to apply the change. I am neither for the patch, nor against it. - In fact, it doesn't hurt to read STATUS just before LOCK test. - I wasn't able to find any noticeable difference in LOCK acquisition. - Nowhere, I was able to find that reading VSTATUS, clears the Read-Only bits set by the onchip microcontroller. The above comment could be wrong at least, as far as I can say. But that said, if the change does really help (thinking of strange issues with some Silicon cuts) Acked-by: Manu Abraham <manu@xxxxxxxxxxx> Regards, Manu -- 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
