From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.kapsi.fi ([217.30.184.167]:54838 "EHLO mail.kapsi.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757894Ab1LWVzP (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:55:15 -0500 Message-ID: <4EF4F8B3.3070709@iki.fi> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:54:59 +0200 From: Antti Palosaari MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab CC: linux-media , Patrick Boettcher Subject: Re: [RFCv1] add DTMB support for DVB API References: <4EF3A171.3030906@iki.fi> <4EF45E0D.1080509@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4EF45E0D.1080509@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/23/2011 12:55 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > On 22-12-2011 19:30, Antti Palosaari wrote: >> Rename DMB-TH to DTMB. > > Patrick seems to believe that CTTB is a better name. In any case, > whatever name we pick, I think that the DocBook specs (and > maybe a comment at the header file) should point all the known > ways to call this standard. So, I'm fine with any choice. I am not going to change it for CTTB unless there is no some document given says it is more correct than DTMB. I have looked very many papers over there and DTMB is absolutely more common as far as I gave seen. >> Add few new values for existing parameters. >> >> Add two new parameters, interleaving and carrier. >> DTMB supports interleavers: 240 and 720. >> DTMB supports carriers: 1 and 3780. > > The API change looks sane to my eyes. I have just a couple > comments below. I think I will add carrier modes to enum fe_transmit_mode... I will send new propose soon. >> @@ -169,8 +170,11 @@ typedef enum fe_modulation { >> APSK_16, >> APSK_32, >> DQPSK, >> + QAM_4_NR, > > While the NR is generally associated with the modulation, > this is a channel code, and not part of the modulation itself > (btw, the DVBv3 API calls it as "constellation"). > > Ok, it is easier to add it here, but maybe it would be safer > to add a separate field for channel coding that would be used > to enable or disable the Nordstrom-Robinson code. > > This is currently used only with QAM-4, but nothing prevents this > parity code to be added to other types of modulation. > >> } fe_modulation_t; >> >> +#define QAM_4 QPSK > > IMHO, this is overkill, but I'm ok with that. Anyone else have comment about that? regards Antti -- http://palosaari.fi/