VDR HLCI support ; was Re: [vdr] Twinhan VisionPlus DVB with CI: CAM doesn't support link layer interface [Fwd: Re: [linux-dvb] Re: A suggestion required...]

Manu Abraham abraham.manu at gmail.com
Wed Nov 30 21:16:49 CET 2005


In case somebody is interested in adding support to VDR a reference to 
the discussion that we had earlier on this aspect.

If somebody needs to add support, applications that can be referenced at 
the moment are
[1] ca_zap in dvb-apps
[2] VLC (CVS version)

If some body needs some help on this, would be glad to help on the 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [linux-dvb] Re: A suggestion required...
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:07:33 +0100
From: Klaus Schmidinger <Klaus.Schmidinger at cadsoft.de>
Organization: CadSoft Computer GmbH
To: linux-dvb <linux-dvb at linuxtv.org>
References: <4232DB9D.6060601 at kromtek.com> 
<20050312172423.GD16421 at linuxtv.org>	<4233265C.5090707 at cadsoft.de> 
<423329B9.8010009 at kromtek.com>

Manu Abraham wrote:
> Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
>> Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>>> Manu Abraham wrote:
>>>> I have been working on the Twinhan and Twinhan clone card drivers, i 
>>>> mean both FTA and CI based ones..
>>>> The FTA cards do look like most standard cards, whereas the CI based 
>>>> cards are a bit different from others..
>>>> The reason why the CI based cards do differ from the others is that 
>>>> there is no Transport Layer visible to the driver, but does exists 
>>>> in some form in the Firmware, and nothing can be done about it ..
>>>> So here i am at a point, ready to write a layer/library that would 
>>>> make it more adaptable to DVB applications..
>>> Since you Cc'd Klaus: VDR already contains a CI library, and I guess
>>> he's not eager to include another one. It would be nice if you
>>> could point out to him what needs to be changed in VDR to support
>>> Twinhan-style CI, or maybe even send him a patch. But you
>>> better sort that out on the vdr mailing list.
>>> Johannes
>> I wouldn't like to implement a special method of CI handling just
> That would mean i have to make my own hardware ? Damn..
>> for one particular hardware. You should make the interface behave
> It is not one single hardware, but it is an entire family of cards..
>> just like the existing one - then you can use VDR right out of the box.
> It is not a special method, but only thing is that everything is in 
> Application layer, rather than Transport layer.
> I was not looking at using it straight out of the box..
> Anyway, thanks for replying..
> Manu

Maybe you should describe in more detail where exactly the difference
is with respect to how VDR's CI handling is done now. If it just means that
everything VDR does in its cCiTransport* stuff is not needed for your card,
I guess it shouldn't be too much trouble to handle things on the cCiSession
level. What would be necessary then, though, would be some of of having the
driver API tell the application which method to use (maybe that's already
there and I just didn't use it ;-).

And please post to the list and don't CC: me - this only tears threads 


linux-dvb mailing list
linux-dvb at linuxtv.org

More information about the vdr mailing list