[vdr] RFC: one or many positioners?

Timothy D. Lenz tlenz at vorgon.com
Mon Apr 22 21:57:56 CEST 2013


Better to support multi-positioners. Makes options much more flexible.

On 4/21/2013 5:54 AM, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> I'm currently implementing support for steerable dishes, loosely based
> on https://linuxtv.org/patch/12911. In doing so, I'm defining a virtual
> base class cPositioner, which defines all the functions necessary to
> control the positioner. An implementation of cDiseqcPositioner will
> allow control of "DiSEqC 1.2" and "USALS" motors. A plugin can derive
> from cPositioner and implement its very own way of controlling a
> positioner (like through a serial or USB port or whatever).
>
> The question I have now is: will it be enough to have *one* single
> positioner
> in any given setup, or are there actually users who have more than one
> positioner?
> Supporting only a single positioner (as is done in the aforementioned
> patch)
> of course simplifies things quite a bit. So I wouldn't want to add this
> level of complexity unless there is a real need for it.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Klaus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vdr mailing list
> vdr at linuxtv.org
> http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
>



More information about the vdr mailing list