From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227]:37061 "EHLO fmmailgate02.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751095AbZHAI1b (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Aug 2009 04:27:31 -0400 Received: from smtp06.web.de (fmsmtp06.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.5.172]) by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E8810F219DF for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:27:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.228.207.67] (helo=[172.16.99.2]) by smtp06.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (WEB.DE 4.110 #277) id 1MX9wB-0002V8-00 for linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:27:31 +0200 Message-ID: <4A73FC6F.8000709@magic.ms> Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:27:27 +0200 From: emagick@magic.ms MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Patch for stack/DMA problems in Cinergy T2 drivers (2) References: <4A735330.1000406@magic.ms> <20090731214046.GA28139@linuxtv.org> In-Reply-To: <20090731214046.GA28139@linuxtv.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > There is a fair amount of code duplication. A better aproach would > be to allocate buffers once in cinergyt2_fe_attach() > (add them to struct cinergyt2_fe_state). Yes, but first I have to investigate why tuning is still quite unreliable (ie, more unreliable than in 2.6.29). Am I really the only one who has those problems with the Cinergy T2 driver in 2.6.30?