On 10/06/11 20:56, Manu Abraham wrote:
Mauro,
comments in-line.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
mche...@redhat.com wrote:
Em 30-09-2011 15:41, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
On 09/30/11 19:07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 29-09-2011 18:22, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
Another
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Lutz Sammer john...@gmx.net wrote:
On 10/06/11 20:56, Manu Abraham wrote:
Mauro,
comments in-line.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
mche...@redhat.com wrote:
Em 30-09-2011 15:41, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
On 09/30/11 19:07, Mauro
Mauro,
comments in-line.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
mche...@redhat.com wrote:
Em 30-09-2011 15:41, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
On 09/30/11 19:07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 29-09-2011 18:22, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
Another version of
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:22, Lutz Sammer wrote:
With the patch more transponder could be locked and locks about 2* faster.
I second that, tested against vanilla kernel 3.0.1 with and w.o patch
and the Twinhan 1041.
Manu, you know there's sth wrong with the algo, so please review,
comment
Em 29-09-2011 18:22, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
Another version of
http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6307
http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6510
which was superseded or rejected, but I don't know why.
Probably because of the same reason of this patch [1]:
patch -p1 -i
On 09/30/11 19:07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 29-09-2011 18:22, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
Another version of
http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6307
http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6510
which was superseded or rejected, but I don't know why.
Probably because of the same reason of this
Em 30-09-2011 15:41, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
On 09/30/11 19:07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 29-09-2011 18:22, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
Another version of
http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6307
http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6510
which was superseded or rejected, but I don't know why.
Another version of
http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6307
http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6510
which was superseded or rejected, but I don't know why.
In stb0899_status stb0899_check_data the first read of STB0899_VSTATUS
could read old (from previous search) status bits and the search fails
