Re: RFC: one or many positioners?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Better to support multi-positioners. Makes options much more flexible.

On 4/21/2013 5:54 AM, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
I'm currently implementing support for steerable dishes, loosely based
on https://linuxtv.org/patch/12911. In doing so, I'm defining a virtual
base class cPositioner, which defines all the functions necessary to
control the positioner. An implementation of cDiseqcPositioner will
allow control of "DiSEqC 1.2" and "USALS" motors. A plugin can derive
from cPositioner and implement its very own way of controlling a
positioner (like through a serial or USB port or whatever).

The question I have now is: will it be enough to have *one* single
positioner
in any given setup, or are there actually users who have more than one
positioner?
Supporting only a single positioner (as is done in the aforementioned
patch)
of course simplifies things quite a bit. So I wouldn't want to add this
level of complexity unless there is a real need for it.

Any opinions?

Klaus


_______________________________________________
vdr mailing list
vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr


_______________________________________________
vdr mailing list
vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Util Linux NG]     [Xfree86]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Women]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux USB]

  Powered by Linux