[vdr] VDR and Hybrid DVB Cards ( was "HVR 4000 drivers broken - adapter0/frontend1 busy" in linux-media list )

L. Hanisch dvb at flensrocker.de
Sat Nov 19 17:15:11 CET 2011

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
>>>>> thereafter).
>>>> 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 other.
>>> 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 timers/recordings etc.
>> 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 sense now.
>>> 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
>>> like this.
>> 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.


> Klaus
> _______________________________________________
> vdr mailing list
> vdr at linuxtv.org
> http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

More information about the vdr mailing list