From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:23:10 -0400 From: Steven Toth In-reply-to: <48F89D48.70207@linuxtv.org> To: Andreas Oberritter Message-id: <48F8D80E.6020909@linuxtv.org> MIME-version: 1.0 References: <412bdbff0810150724h2ab46767ib7cfa52e3fdbc5fa@mail.gmail.com> <48F5FE80.5010106@linuxtv.org> <412bdbff0810150740h61049f5fvb679bdebbcd4084d@mail.gmail.com> <48F633FA.4000106@linuxtv.org> <48F86120.2020203@linuxtv.org> <48F893A3.4060607@linuxtv.org> <48F89D48.70207@linuxtv.org> Cc: Linux-dvb Subject: Re: [linux-dvb] Revisiting the SNR/Strength issue List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-dvb-bounces@linuxtv.org Errors-To: linux-dvb-bounces+mchehab=infradead.org@linuxtv.org List-ID: Andreas Oberritter wrote: > Steven Toth wrote: >> I don't agree to blindly massaging the demod values and trying to add a >> fake user facing API is a real solution. > > I wonder what you're referring to with this sentence. I think trying to massage various mysterious and unknown demod statistics into something that we can barely understand, in order to get them exposed in either a single unit of measure, or multiple units of measure, isn't a credible solution. We should go back and find the correct SNR mechanism for each demod. Then review and agree on an internal kernel spec, and re-engineer the demods to meet the spec. Devin has started the ball rolling nicely, to allow this to happen. - Steve _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb