From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.kapsi.fi ([217.30.184.167]:53885 "EHLO mail.kapsi.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751954Ab2AXO6x (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:58:53 -0500 Message-ID: <4F1EC725.7090204@iki.fi> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:58:45 +0200 From: Antti Palosaari MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Devin Heitmueller CC: "Hawes, Mark" , linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: HVR 4000 hybrid card still producing multiple frontends for single adapter References: <44895934A66CD441A02DCF15DD759BA0011CAE69@SYDEXCHTMP2.au.fjanz.com> <4F1E9A78.7020203@iki.fi> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/24/2012 04:49 PM, Devin Heitmueller wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Antti Palosaari wrote: >> On 01/24/2012 06:41 AM, Hawes, Mark wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a HVR 4000 hybrid card which provides both DVB-S2 and DVB-T >>> capabilities on the one adapter. Using the current media tree build updated >>> with the contents of the linux media drivers tarball dated 22/01/2012 the >>> drivers for this card are still generating two frontends on the adapter as >>> below: >>> >>>> Jan 23 12:16:44 Nutrigrain kernel: [ 9.346240] DVB: registering >>>> adapter 1 frontend 0 (Conexant CX24116/CX24118)... >>>> Jan 23 12:16:44 Nutrigrain kernel: [ 9.349110] DVB: registering >>>> adapter 1 frontend 1 (Conexant CX22702 DVB-T)... >>> >>> >>> I understand that this behaviour is now deprecated and that the correct >>> behaviour should be to generate one front end with multiple capabilities. >>> Can this please be corrected. >> >> >> Same applies for many other devices too. For example some older Anysee E7 >> models have two chip and two frontends whilst new one have only one. Also >> TechnoTrend CT3650 and Hauppauge WinTV. >> >> Maybe it those are implemented later as one frontend, it not clear for me. > > The merging of frontends is something that is only done if there are > multiple modulation types on the same demodulator chip. As the > HVR-4000 has separate demods for DVB-T versus DVB-S2, they will always > be represented by two separate frontends (for the foreseeable future). > > In other words, the recent work doesn't apply to this card (and others like it). So what was the actual benefit then just introduce one way more to implement same thing. As I sometime understood from Manu's talk there will not be difference if my device is based of DVB-T + DVB-C demod combination or just single chip that does same. Now there is devices that have same characteristics but different interface. regards Antti -- http://palosaari.fi/