Re: XC5000 improvements: call for testers!

["Timothy D. Lenz" <tlenz@vorgon.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Devin Heitmueller" <dheitmueller@kernellabs.com>
To: "Britney Fransen" <britney.fransen@gmail.com>
Cc: "Devin Heitmueller" <devin.heitmueller@gmail.com>; "Linux Media Mailing List" <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: XC5000 improvements: call for testers!


> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Britney Fransen
> <britney.fransen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I finally had some time to do some more testing with the beta2 tree and I
> > think most of the issues I had were user error. Not exactly sure what I did
> > wrong before but I am not seeing the reception issues or any regressions on
> > the digital side anymore. I think why I thought I was seeing QAM64 was
> > because I was using the wrong tuner. With the beta2 tree my 950q is now
> > adapter1, before it was always adapter2. That could be part of what I
> > thought was the reception regression as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Britney
> 
> Hello Britney,
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to isolate/debug the situation.  The
> changes should have no effect on the order of adapter1/adapter2.
> Could have just been a coincidence or the order in which you plugged
> in the devices compared to what they usually are at boot time.
> 
> Glad to see that there are no longer any issues.  Once I get one
> outstanding Pinnacle 800i fix in, I will issue a PULL request and this
> will go into the mainline.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Devin
> 
> -- 
> Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs
> http://www.kernellabs.com


So when this goes main, next time we update from v4l we need the new firmware right?