Klaus Schmidinger wrote: > Please try the attached patch. > With this change "avoiding full featured or primary cards" gets > less priority than "using the device with the lowest priority > or the lowest number of CA methods".
Thanks for your patch, I played around with it. The ActualDevice() test has a very high priority, so if I start a recording on the fly, my CI device is still preferred. For testing purposes I commented out the ActualDevice() test, then your patch worked for me. I don't understand the device[i]->ProvidesCa(Channel) test, because it checks for the currently requested channel. I dunno any internals (so please be patient with me ;), but from reading the source code it looks that the first if condition in the device loop device[i]->ProvidesChannel(Channel, Priority, &ndr) already checks if the device is basically capable of decoding the requested channel, this must include a test for decryption capability (if the channel is encrypted), not?. So why another ProvidesCA() test? All devices in this if block should pass it anyway. What about adding a high priority test like hasCAM() (ideally with weighting the number of channels the device is able to decrypt) to avoid blocking a CA device unnecessarily? Regards, Joern -- Think before you code. And while you're doing it probably won't hurt. ;)
pgpxSLFyR2XzM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
