Re: stv090x vs stv0900 support

[Oliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl>]

On 07/24/13 19:52, Antti Palosaari wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 08:21 PM, Krishna Kishore wrote:
>> My opinion is that, it is better to have only stv090x. Apart from minimizing the number of patches and ease of maintenance, it will avoid the confusion that I had When I started using prof 7500. I had to enable stv0900 and stb6100. I got confused on whether to enable stv0900 or to enable stv090x.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Chris Lee
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:09 PM
>> To: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: stv090x vs stv0900 support
>>
>> Im looking for comments on these two modules, they overlap support for the same demods. stv0900 supporting stv0900 and stv090x supporting
>> stv0900 and stv0903. Ive flipped a few cards from one to the other and they function fine. In some ways stv090x is better suited. Its a pain supporting two modules that are written differently but do the same thing, a fix in one almost always means it has to be implemented in the other as well.
>>
>> Im not necessarily suggesting dumping stv0900, but Id like to flip a few cards that I own over to stv090x just to standardize it. The Prof
>> 7301 and Prof 7500.
>>
>> Whats everyones thoughts on this? It will cut the number of patch''s in half when it comes to these demods. Ive got alot more coming lol :)
>>
>> Chris
>
>
> stv0900 is better separated from the tuner whilst stv090x has weird
> stv6110x_devctl structure. That's why I used stv0900 for anysee driver.
> I wonder is there something special supported by stv090x because normal
> tuner/demod callbacks are not enough.
That's probably for the ddbridge driver, while ours is pretty old (0.5) 
Ralph/oliver is working on 0.9 atm. 0.8.6 still uses the same structure 
i think.
>
> regards
> Antti
>