Quoting Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:57:00AM -0500, Andrew Dodd wrote: >> Quoting Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> >> This isn't true if you need Samsung tuner support - the kernel >> >> modules do not >> >> have support for the Samsung TCPN tuner on new PVR-500s, and so in >> >> the case of >> >> PVR-500 boards with the new Samsung tuner, you have to go back to the >> >> "old way" >> >> of doing things. Of course, if they're using RPMs that didn't have >> >> the Kbuild >> >> files modified to build those modules in the first place, things >> won't work >> >> anyway. >> > >> > The rpms package up what the ivtv buildsystem decides to build for >> > that kernel. E.g. there is no control mechsnism in the rpm layer, >> > you get what you'd get if you would build it yourself. > >> This is what I guessed. The end result is that the RPMs will *not* >> work for anyone who has a Samsung tuner - they will have to manually >> build ivtv themselves. >> >> > Hans turned off the build of certain kernel modules for 2.6.15 >> > because the support is now in the kernel. Did you try the Samsung >> > tuner support with 2.6.15? If ivtv 0.4.2 had better tuner kernel >> > modules than 2.6.15, Hans wouldn't had turned it off. > >> No, it makes sense to turn building of ivtv's own tveeprom/tuner >> modules off by default, since they are of no benefit to 95%+ of ivtv >> users > > Oh, no, we want 100% !!! :) Who doesn't? :)
>> - only those who have Samsung tuners on a recent PVR-500 (not >> supported by the 2.6.15 kernel modules, as Samsung support was added >> in early-to-mid January, which is after 2.6.15's release) have a >> need for the ivtv tuner modules, which is why getting them to build >> requires modifying one of the Kbuild files in the ivtv distribution. > > Then that's a bug in ivtv 0.4.2 logic of deciding which kernel modules > to build. I'll look into it. I'm not sure if there is an automatic solution here - Choosing to build the modules by default will cause problems for those who don't need the additional support. (Unless the modules are automatically renamed to tuner-ivtv and tveeprom-ivtv and then overriden in modules.conf , which is a possibility I guess.) There's no easy way to know at build time whether the new tuner module is needed or not. >> The end conclusion is: Do not try to use precompiled RPMs for a >> PVR-500 with >> the new Samsung tuner, at least not with kernel 2.6.15 + ivtv 0.4.2. > > As I see it 0.4.2 needs an extra functional patch for Samasung & NTSC > and fixing its build targets for 2.6.15 (e.g. including > tuner.ko). Correct? Yes, it does need an additional patch for Samsung support since the initial support turned out to have the wrong bandswitch thresholds. As to changing build targets for 2.6.15, as I mentioned in the last paragraph, I'm not sure if there is a correct way to do this for 100% of all users. For most users, building tuner.ko will cause potential conflicts with the kernel modules. For those who need updated Samsung support, building tuner.ko is required. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any way (for a user, at least) to disable building tuner.ko and tveeprom.ko in the kernel without disabling a number of other modules which ivtv depends on (and which are not built under any circumstances.) The required tuner support should be in 2.6.16 though, so this may become irrelevant soon. _______________________________________________ ivtv-users mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-users
