OK, I looked at case #2 and it's a ginormous patch against a few v4l 
chip-level drivers and additional configuration definition(s) for the 
pvrusb2 driver to support this device.  In addition, the patch appears 
to be modifying functional logic in the driver itself, which may or may 
not be harmful to other pvrusb2-driven devices (the other bits follow 
the pattern I had laid down for adding hardware support so those parts 
are pretty safe).

I need to go through this in detail and it should be formally merged 
with the pvrusb2 driver.  If anyone can find out who has copyright 
authority over this (presumably Hauppauge and I'd love to hear from them 
about this), that needs to be sorted before it can be accepted.  
There's no copyright info with the patch AFAICT.

It would have been useful if I had been contacted directly by Hauppauge 
about this.  But admittedly I've been out of the loop for a while so 
maybe they did and I didn't see it or they figured I was MIA.

I see that this big patch also includes firmware blobs, but nothing for 
any mpeg2 encoder on-board, so that would not help the problem that 
started this thread.

The subject of this thread "(with official drivers)" - I'd say that 
term is questionable at best.  The patch might be from Hauppauge but it 
really has the feel of something thrown over the fence and not really 

No idea still about case #3 (NDA-requiring case).


On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, is...@isely.net wrote:

> Ian:
> Wait a second.  Now I'm confused.  Are you or are not using the pvrusb2 
> driver?  The error you quoted was definitely phrasing that would have 
> come from the pvrusb2 driver.  If you're using something else entirely 
> different I'd be VERY curious know why the resemblence.
> Also - to others here - I'm confused about something else.  This sounds 
> like we're talking about 3 drivers:
> 1. The pvrusb2 driver, in the kernel mainline.
> 2. Something on the Hauppauge web site, apparently freely accessible.
> 3. Something from Hauppauge that can't be acquired without an NDA.
> Is this correct?  Anyone, chime in.
>   -Mike
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Ian Goldberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:37:25AM +0000, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:35 PM,  <is...@isely.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I know basically nothing about the HVR-1975.
> > > 
> > > As I understand it, the HVR-1975 is essentially
> > > a "one size fits all" redesign of the basic HVR-1900
> > > and the HVR-1950/1955 which is compatible with
> > > both US and DVB standards [mostly for commercial
> > > embedded solutions that want one SKU for either
> > > location (it actually contains two demods)].
> > > 
> > > Hauppuage (last I knew) reportedly offered an out
> > > of tree driver on their website for the HVR-1975,
> > > but (again, last I knew) it was never submitted
> > > upstream (it was reported some of the code
> > > included non-GPL copyright, and I presume
> > > it could not be re-licensed).
> > 
> > Yes, that's the driver I'm using.
> > _______________________________________________
> > pvrusb2 mailing list
> > pvrusb2@isely.net
> > http://www.isely.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pvrusb2
> > 


Mike Isely
isely @ isely (dot) net
PGP: 03 54 43 4D 75 E5 CC 92 71 16 01 E2 B5 F5 C1 E8
pvrusb2 mailing list

Reply via email to