Em Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:14:38 +0100 Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > Am 19.02.2013 21:03, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab: > > Em Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:45:21 +0100 > > Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > >> Am 19.02.2013 19:53, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab: > >>> Em Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:45:29 +0100 > >>> Frank Schäfer <fschaefer.oss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >>> > >>>>> I don't like the idea of merging those two entries. As far as I remember > >>>>> there are devices that works out of the box with > >>>>> EM2860_BOARD_SAA711X_REFERENCE_DESIGN. A change like that can break > >>>>> the driver for them. > >>>> As described above, there is a good chance to break devices with both > >>>> solutions. > >>>> > >>>> What's your suggestion ? ;-) > >>>> > >>> As I said, just leave it as-is (documenting at web) > >> That seems to be indeed the only 100%-regression-safe solution. > >> But also _no_ solution for this device. > >> A device which works only with a special module parameter passed on > >> driver loading isn't much better than an unsupported device. > > That's not true. There are dozens of devices that only work with > > modprobe parameter (even ones with their own USB or PCI address). > > So the fact that we handle plenty devices this way makes the situation > for the user better ? ;-) > Not really ! > > > The thing > > is that crappy vendors don't provide any way for a driver to detect what's > > there, as their driver rely on some *.inf config file with those parameters > > hardcoded. > > > > We can't do any better than what's provided by the device. > > > >> It comes down to the following question: > >> Do we want to refuse fixing known/existing devices for the sake of > >> avoiding regression for unknown devices which even might not exist ? ;-) > > HUH? As I said: there are devices that work with the other board entry. > > If you remove the other entry, _then_ you'll be breaking the driver. > > Which devices _with_audio_support_ are working with > EM2860_BOARD_SAA711X_REFERENCE_DESIGN ? > > AFAIK, the existence of such a device is pure theory at the moment. > But the Easycap DC-60 is reality ! See the mailing lists archives. This driver is older than linux-media ML, and it used to have a separate em28xx mailing list in the past. Not sure if are there any mirror preserving the old logs for the em28xx ML, as this weren't hosted here. Please, don't pretend that you know all supported em28xx devices. > >> I have no strong and final opinion yet. Still hoping someone knows how > >> the Empia driver handles these cases... > > What do you mean? The original driver? The parameters are hardcoded at the > > *.inf file. Once you get the driver, the *.inf file contains all the > > parameters for it to work there. If you have two empia devices with > > different models, you can only use the second one after removing the > > install for the first one. > > Are you sure about that ? That's the worst case. Yes, I'm pretty sure about that. > >>> or to use the AC97 > >>> chip ID as a hint. This works fine for devices that don't come with > >>> Empiatech em202, but with something else, like the case of the Realtek > >>> chip found on this device. The reference design for sure uses em202. > >> How could the AC97 chip ID help us in this situation ? > >> As far as I understand, it doesn't matter which AC97 IC is used. > >> They are all compatible and at least our driver uses the same code for > >> all of them. > > The em28xx Kernel driver uses a hint code to try to identify the device > > model. That hint code is not perfect, but it is the better we can do. > > > > There are two hint codes there, currently: > > 1) device's eeprom hash, used when the device has an eeprom, but the > > USB ID is not unique; > > > > 2) I2C scan bus hash: sometimes, different devices use different I2C > > addresses. > > ??? > > Again, how can the AC97 chip ID help us in this situation ? > You just described the current board hint mechanism which clearly fails > in this case. > > > > >> So even if you are are right and the Empia reference design uses an EMP202, > >> EM2860_BOARD_SAA711X_REFERENCE_DESIGN might work for devices with other > >> AC97-ICs, too. > > The vast majority of devices use emp202. There are very few ones using > > different models. > > > > The proposal here is to add a third hint code, that would distinguish > > the devices based on the ac97 ID. > > I already explained why this is a potential source for regressions, too. Yes, that may mean that other devices will need other entries, if are out there any device that looks like the reference design. Yet, such device IS NOT the reference design, as it is very doubtful that Empia would be shipping their reference design with an AC97 chip manufactured by another vendor. There are, however, lots of device that just gets the Empia reference design as-is (the same applies to other vendors) and only "designs" a box with their logo. This is specially true for simpler devices like capture boards, where there are just a very few set of components on it. Cheers, Mauro -- 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
