Am 18.11.2011 19:03, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger:
On 16.11.2011 23:59, L. Hanisch wrote:
Am 16.11.2011 23:26, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger:
On 16.11.2011 19:16, L. Hanisch wrote:
Am 16.11.2011 00:08, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger:
That is also my understanding of multi frontend devices.
If an "adapter" has several "frontends" only one of them can
be active at any given time. This has nothing to do with
any "explosives" (excuse the pun ;-) and will be implemented
in the core VDR code as time permits. Right now I'm cleaning up
the "lnb sharing" (aka "device bonding") stuff and will hopefully
find more time for VDR development by the end of the year (and
If you don't mind I would try to prefabricate something.
On a first guess: would you combine the multiple frontends of an adapter in one
cDvbDevice? I think this would be
better than having multiple cDvbDevices which must interact somehow with each
Sure there will be one cDvbDevice per adapter for a multi-frontend device
where only one frontend can be active at any time.
If (like on the TT-S2 6400) there are several frontends that can be
active simultaneously, then there shall be separate adapters for each
frontend, and thus a separate cDvbDevice for each adapter.
Here's a first "quick'n'dirty" patch. Since my hardware hasn't arrived yet I
tested with a DVB-T and DVB-C stick and
sym-linked the devices within one adapter. I have no ca-devices in this setup.
Switching between C and T channels works here, but it's not really tested with
I don't have a FF card, so the patches for the plugins are more of "remove compiler
warnings" only. One have to think
about cDvbDeviceProbe and the parameters. A frontend argument doesn't make much
Note, though, that support for such devices will most likely not
go into VDR for version 2. I'm trying to wrap things up in order
to make a stable version 2, and after that will address new things
I'm fine with this and looking forward to it. A new stable release would be
fine! Xmas is next door... :)
I've received an email from Manu Abraham, informing
me that he intends to change the driver in such a way that there will always
be only *one* frontend, even if it can handle multiple delivery systems.
So every frontend an adapter will provide will always be useable independent
of all other frontends of that adapter.
Personally, I like this method more than having separate frontends for
each delivery system, and having to manage access between them.
Just wanted to let you know that the official implementation in VDR
(most likely after version 2.0) will go a different way than your patch.
I followed the discussion on linux-media. But since it's a new ioctl some kind of backport would be needed and also a
workaround for drivers which doesn't provide the new ioctl.
One frontend per adapter would be very nice. And in case of dual tuner cards I would expect two adapters since they
are independent from each other. If they are combined in one adapter they cannot be distinguished from "old" adapters
with mutually exclusive frontends - and things would be dirtier as is. :)
In the meantime I will polish my patch a bit and rework on the changes which breaks existing plugins. It was just a
first try anyway.
vdr mailing list
vdr mailing list