Hi,
Am 24.01.2012 16:16, schrieb Devin Heitmueller:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Antti Palosaari<crope@xxxxxx> wrote:
So what was the actual benefit then just introduce one way more to implement
same thing. As I sometime understood from Manu's talk there will not be
difference if my device is based of DVB-T + DVB-C demod combination or just
single chip that does same. Now there is devices that have same
characteristics but different interface.
For one thing, you cannot use DVB-T and DVB-C at the same time if
they're on the same demod. With many of the devices that have S/S2
and DVB-T, you can be using them both in parallel. Having multiple
frontends actually makes sense since you don't want two applications
talking to the same frontend at the same time but operating on
different tuners/streams.
The two frontends of the HVR 4000 can only be open mutually exclusive so I think the recent changes are for those
devices, aren't they? Sure you can connect DVB-T and DVB-S at the same time to the HVR 4000, but you can't use it in
parallel.
Lars.
That said, there could be opportunities for consolidation if the
demods could not be used in parallel, but I believe that would require
a nontrivial restructuring of the core code and API. In my opinion
the entry point for the kernel ABI should *never* have been the
demodulator but rather the bridge driver (where you can exercise
greater control over what can be used in parallel).
Devin
--
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
