Re: [git:v4l-dvb/for_v3.7] [media] mantis: Terratec Cinergy C PCI HD (CI)

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>]

Em 14-08-2012 10:23, Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu:
> Em 14-08-2012 04:45, Manu Abraham escreveu:
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>> <mchehab@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Em 10-08-2012 20:55, Manu Abraham escreveu:
>>>> Mauro,
>>>>
>>>> Please revert this patch. Patch is incorrect. There is the VP-20300,
>>>> VP-20330, VP-2040, with differences in tuner types TDA10021, TDA10023,
>>>> MK-I, MK-II and MK-III. I have detailed this issue in an earlier mail.
>>>> Terratec Cinregy C is VP-2033 and not VP-2040.
>>>
>>> Well, as I don't have this board, you think that it is a VP-2033 while
>>> Igor thinks it is a VP-2040, I can't tell who is right on that.
>>
>> You don't need all the cards to apply changes, that's how the Linux
>> patchland works.
>>
>> I have "all" Mantis based devices here. So I can say with clarity that
>> Terratec Cinergy C is VP-2033. I authored the whole driver for the
>> chipset manufacturer and the card manufacturer and still in touch with
>> all of them and pretty sure what is what.
>>
>> Any idiot can send any patch, that's why you need to ask the persons
>> who added particular changes in that area.
> 
> Yes, you authored the driver, but that doesn't necessarily means that
> you'll have all clones of VP-2033/VP-2040.
> 
>> Do you want me to add
>> myself to MAINTAINERS to make it a bit more clearer, if that's what
>> you prefer ?
> 
> If you're wiling to maintain it, not holding patches for more than the
> few days required for their review, then YES!!! 
> 
> Please add yourself to the MAINTAINERS for the drivers you're willing
> to maintain and submit me such patch for upstream merging.
> 
>> Please revert this change.
> 
> I'll do.


Hmm... there's something wrong: this would be the revert patch, as produced
by git revert:

diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/mantis/mantis_cards.c b/drivers/media/pci/mantis/mantis_cards.c
index 0207d1f..095cf3a 100644
--- a/drivers/media/pci/mantis/mantis_cards.c
+++ b/drivers/media/pci/mantis/mantis_cards.c
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ static struct pci_device_id mantis_pci_table[] = {
 	MAKE_ENTRY(TWINHAN_TECHNOLOGIES, MANTIS_VP_2033_DVB_C, &vp2033_config),
 	MAKE_ENTRY(TWINHAN_TECHNOLOGIES, MANTIS_VP_2040_DVB_C, &vp2040_config),
 	MAKE_ENTRY(TECHNISAT, CABLESTAR_HD2, &vp2040_config),
-	MAKE_ENTRY(TERRATEC, CINERGY_C, &vp2040_config),
+	MAKE_ENTRY(TERRATEC, CINERGY_C, &vp2033_config),
 	MAKE_ENTRY(TWINHAN_TECHNOLOGIES, MANTIS_VP_3030_DVB_T, &vp3030_config),
 	{ }
 };
diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/mantis/mantis_core.c b/drivers/media/pci/mantis/mantis_core.c
index 684d906..22524a8 100644
--- a/drivers/media/pci/mantis/mantis_core.c
+++ b/drivers/media/pci/mantis/mantis_core.c
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static void mantis_load_config(struct mantis_pci *mantis)
 		mantis->hwconfig = &vp2033_mantis_config;
 		break;
 	case MANTIS_VP_2040_DVB_C:	/* VP-2040 */
-	case CINERGY_C:	/* VP-2040 clone */
+	case TERRATEC_CINERGY_C_PCI:	/* VP-2040 clone */
 	case TECHNISAT_CABLESTAR_HD2:
 		mantis->hwconfig = &vp2040_mantis_config;
 		break;

There's something wrong there: the comments at "mantis_core", before this
patch, is saying that TERRATEC_CINERGY_C_PCI is a VP-2040 clone.

That doesn't look right: this card is either a VP-2033 clone (as stated on
mantis_cards), or a VP-2040 (as stated on mantis_core).

So, please write me a patch syncing both places with the correct information.

Thanks!
Mauro