Re: dvb_usb_af9015: command failed=1 _ kernel >= 4.1.x

[poma <pomidorabelisima@gmail.com>]

On 11.08.2015 00:40, Antti Palosaari wrote:
> On 08/11/2015 12:46 AM, poma wrote:
>> Furthermore, to fix this issue - AF9015 DVB-T USB2.0 stick brokenness - is the responsibility of developers.
>> I am here only proven tester.
>>
>> I hope we understand each other, and this problem will be resolved in good faith.
> 
> Your patches are implemented wrong.


Talk about deflecting.

The patch that you called "my" is nothing but two reverted commitas:

- 02f9cf96df57575acea2e6eb4041e9f3ecd32548
  "[media] [PATH,2/2] mxl5007 move loop_thru to attach"
- fe4860af002a4516dd878f7297b61e186c475b35
  "[media] [PATH,1/2] mxl5007 move reset to attach"

Besides the author, Jose Alberto Reguero does not oppose to revert them, due to the trouble they cause.

> 
> When I added mxl5007t support to that driver it was DigitalNow TinyTwin 
> v2 I had. The rest mxl5007t dual devices using reference design IDs went 
> to same due to reason driver detects used tuner. My device is still 
> working fine, which means your device has different wiring. As 2nd tuner 
> attach fails it means there is communication loss to tuner. Which means 
> tuner is most likely hold in a reset attach time or there is some I2C 
> gating which prevents communication.
> 
> Patches you sent will introduce another issue. For dual tuner 
> configuration there could be antenna wired from tuner chip to another. 
> After that patch you will lose antenna signal from 2nd tuner on cases 
> where tuner antenna wire is loop through master tuner to slave.
> 
> So fix it correctly. Find out reason there is communication loss to 2nd 
> tuner on attach time. I cannot do much as I simply don't have such 
> hardware. And I really do not care to take any responsibility when that 
> kind of issues happens - it is not my job to bough every single device 
> from the market in able to test and fix every hardware combination.
> 
> 
> Antti
> 

You very well know that I am not a developer, 
Therefore I believe this above what you write is addressed to yourself,
after all *you* are a developer, a capable one, right.

Are you?