Re: [linux-dvb] Problems about the drivers rmmod.
How is it that you're inserting driver for your hardware BEFORE the hardware is present? On 7/11/07, lwtbenben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi,everyone > I am now developing my own tv card's driver. > While I am debugging, I just found a problem when I used "modprobe -r" > to rmmod my driver module, it is like this: > a. When I don't insert my hardware, > modprobe dvb-usb-mymodule.ko and modprobe -r dvb-usb-mymodule.ko > were well executed. > b. First, I insmod my module: modprobe dvb-usb-mymodule.ko >Then, I insert my own hareware. >And if I want to rmmod my module: modprobe dvb-usb-mymodule.ko >It is bad. >The terminal is dead, and the modprobe thread is hanging on and can't > bekilled. I must reboot to make it. > >So, could anybody help me with this issue? >Thank you very much. > > > > > > > 150 万 人 同 时 在 玩 的 网 游，你 不 试 试 吗 ？ > ___ > linux-dvb mailing list > linux-dvb@linuxtv.org > http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb > ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
[linux-dvb] Problems about the drivers rmmod.
Hi,everyone I am now developing my own tv card's driver. While I am debugging, I just found a problem when I used "modprobe -r" to rmmod my driver module, it is like this: a. When I don't insert my hardware, modprobe dvb-usb-mymodule.ko and modprobe -r dvb-usb-mymodule.ko were well executed. b. First, I insmod my module: modprobe dvb-usb-mymodule.ko Then, I insert my own hareware. And if I want to rmmod my module: modprobe dvb-usb-mymodule.ko It is bad. The terminal is dead, and the modprobe thread is hanging on and can't be killed. I must reboot to make it. So, could anybody help me with this issue? Thank you very much. ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] Help needed with dst
Joel Michael wrote: > I've just bought a 2nd hand TwinHan VisionPlus (not sure of exact model, > but it is a DVB-S card with a CI slot), but it is not being recognised > by the dst module. The guy I bought it off had it working, but he's not > contactable until next week, and he mentioned that a few settings and > maybe a patch are going to be needed. > I've been in contact with the guy I bought it off, and he confirms that it is supposed to be using the dst (and dst_ca) driver. The machine I'm running the card on is a Core2 Duo (x86_64 mode), on an Asus P5B-VM motherboard, running the Gentoo distribution. I've tried with and without preempt, and am going to try without SMP tonight, and maybe try it in 32-bit mode. I've also tried removing the pair of FlexCopII's, with no success. lspci -v: 00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 82P965/G965 Memory Controller Hub (rev 02) Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Unknown device 81ea Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0 Capabilities: [e0] Vendor Specific Information 00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82P965/G965 PCI Express Root Port (rev 02) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode]) Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0 Bus: primary=00, secondary=01, subordinate=01, sec-latency=0 I/O behind bridge: a000-afff Memory behind bridge: fa70-fe7f Prefetchable memory behind bridge: bfd0-dfcf Capabilities: [88] Subsystem: Intel Corporation Unknown device Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 3 Capabilities: [90] Message Signalled Interrupts: Mask- 64bit- Queue=0/0 Enable+ Capabilities: [a0] Express Root Port (Slot+) IRQ 0 00:1a.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI Contoller #4 (rev 02) (prog-if 00 [UHCI]) Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Unknown device 81ec Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 0, IRQ 16 I/O ports at e000 [size=32] 00:1a.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB UHCI Controller #5 (rev 02) (prog-if 00 [UHCI]) Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Unknown device 81ec Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 0, IRQ 17 I/O ports at e080 [size=32] 00:1a.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller #2 (rev 02) (prog-if 20 [EHCI]) Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Unknown device 81ec Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 0, IRQ 18 Memory at febff400 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1K] Capabilities: [50] Power Management version 2 Capabilities: [58] Debug port 00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) HD Audio Controller (rev 02) Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Unknown device 81ec Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 22 Memory at febf8000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K] Capabilities: [50] Power Management version 2 Capabilities: [60] Message Signalled Interrupts: Mask- 64bit+ Queue=0/0 Enable- Capabilities: [70] Express Unknown type IRQ 0 00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 1 (rev 02) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode]) Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0 Bus: primary=00, secondary=04, subordinate=04, sec-latency=0 Prefetchable memory behind bridge: dfd0-dfdf Capabilities: [40] Express Root Port (Slot+) IRQ 0 Capabilities: [80] Message Signalled Interrupts: Mask- 64bit- Queue=0/0 Enable+ Capabilities: [90] Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Unknown device 81ec Capabilities: [a0] Power Management version 2 00:1c.3 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 4 (rev 02) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode]) Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0 Bus: primary=00, secondary=03, subordinate=03, sec-latency=0 Memory behind bridge: fe90-fe9f Capabilities: [40] Express Root Port (Slot+) IRQ 0 Capabilities: [80] Message Signalled Interrupts: Mask- 64bit- Queue=0/0 Enable+ Capabilities: [90] Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Unknown device 81ec Capabilities: [a0] Power Management version 2 00:1c.4 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 5 (rev 02) (prog-if 00 [Normal decode]) Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0 Bus: primary=00, secondary=02, subordinate=02, sec-latency=0 I/O behind bridge: b000-bfff Memory behind bridge: fe80-fe8f Capabilities: [40] Express Root Port (Slot+) IRQ 0 Capabilities: [80] Message Signalled Interrupts: Mask- 64bit- Queue=0/0 Enable+ Capabilities: [90] Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Unknown device 81ec Capabilities: [a0] Power Management version 2 00:1d.
Re: [linux-dvb] saa7146_i2c_writeout: timed out waiting for end of xfer
Manfred Petz wrote: > actually, both patches help. no more timeouts, and the frontend drivers > get loaded correctly (tried each patch separately). tried with latest hg > & 2.6.22. > I don't understand why both patches do solve the timeout problem. The message 'timed out waiting for end of xfer' means, that no i2c-interrupt was delivered. In this case, the return value of saa7146_i2c_writeout() is -EIO. The first patch has only an effect, if the return value is -EREMOTEIO. The second patch reduces the i2c bit-rate. Usually, it has nothing to do with the interrupts. Independently of this, I've found some strange things. The drivers for the TT-C2300 and the Cinergy DVB-C cards probe some i2c devices which don't exist. This results in an address error (missing ACK after the device address). I see three interrupts for this error. The first sets I2C_BUSY and I2C_APERR within I2C_STATUS. It does not wake-up the waiting thread and may print the message 'unhandled irq: i2c'. The second interrupt is the normal error interrupt which does wake-up the thread. I2C_BUSSY, I2C_ERR and I2C_APERR are set. The third interrupt has set the same three status bits. It may print the message 'unexpected irq: i2c', because the thread was already wake-up. If the chip-set is only able to deliver the first interrupt, the error interrupt will be never delivered and the timeout occurs. - Hartmut ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > Stop that MPL discussion, I can put that code offline too and update > it with some probably nonfunctional code for several devices but it > won't help anyone in the end - so I won't do it. > I don't want my work to be stolen by linuxtv people in the end. It's It's funny you should say this, since 99% of the code you are distributing came from linuxtv in the first place! ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Christoph Pfister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/7/10, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is > > derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. > > Maybe you should read what a derivative work is? And be aware that I > didn't only mean linuxtv, but also all kernel functions you use. > > > Also people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it > > and fact is that the code is still available. > > Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. > > I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. > > You can do a lot (because you have server access) - but not everything is > legal. > > > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > > endresult. > > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > > merging requests are responsible for that. > > > > Most people are welcome to participate at the latest work I have, > > people who participated at recent discussions about getting the code > > which now is in question merged are not welcome anymore. > > That are your personal issues. I doubt that you're 100% innocent and > if you think that you'll have more success that way, do it that way. > No but who came up with code and patches? and that's the only relevant part of everything in the end. And I worked alot with many people back then too. > Back to the MPL: After taking a closer look i had to *ROFL* (and I > think any lawyer will too) about _how_ you want to pseudo-put your > code under the MPL. Maybe you should read the license and see what > formal conditions have to be met? I dunno how you want to enforce > _anybody_ to treat your code as non-GPL'ed. Stop that MPL discussion, I can put that code offline too and update it with some probably nonfunctional code for several devices but it won't help anyone in the end - so I won't do it. I don't want my work to be stolen by linuxtv people in the end. It's too easy to look over the code change a few lines and obfuscure my work, remove the copyright and that's what I'm concerned about. I wouldn't mind about it if it wouldn't happen with that linuxtv community. -Markus ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
2007/7/10, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is > derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. Maybe you should read what a derivative work is? And be aware that I didn't only mean linuxtv, but also all kernel functions you use. > Also people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it > and fact is that the code is still available. > Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. > I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. You can do a lot (because you have server access) - but not everything is legal. > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > endresult. > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > merging requests are responsible for that. > > Most people are welcome to participate at the latest work I have, > people who participated at recent discussions about getting the code > which now is in question merged are not welcome anymore. That are your personal issues. I doubt that you're 100% innocent and if you think that you'll have more success that way, do it that way. Back to the MPL: After taking a closer look i had to *ROFL* (and I think any lawyer will too) about _how_ you want to pseudo-put your code under the MPL. Maybe you should read the license and see what formal conditions have to be met? I dunno how you want to enforce _anybody_ to treat your code as non-GPL'ed. > thanks, > Markus Anyway, I don't have any personal interest in this issue (now I gave my $0.02) so I won't spend any further second on it (hint: my wastemail bin is big). Christoph ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
[linux-dvb] Help needed with dst
Hi, I've just bought a 2nd hand TwinHan VisionPlus (not sure of exact model, but it is a DVB-S card with a CI slot), but it is not being recognised by the dst module. The guy I bought it off had it working, but he's not contactable until next week, and he mentioned that a few settings and maybe a patch are going to be needed. I tried both the in-kernel modules from 2.6.22, and the source from hg. The last attempt with the hg sources resulted in the following messages (dst verbose=4): bttv: driver version 0.9.17 loaded bttv: using 8 buffers with 2080k (520 pages) each for capture bttv: Bt8xx card found (0). bttv0: Bt878 (rev 17) at :05:00.0, irq: 21, latency: 64, mmio: 0xdfefe000 bttv0: detected: Twinhan VisionPlus DVB [card=113], PCI subsystem ID is 1822:0001 bttv0: using: Twinhan DST + clones [card=113,autodetected] bttv0: gpio: en=, out= in=00f500fd [init] bttv0: using tuner=4 bttv0: add subdevice "dvb0" bt878: AUDIO driver version 0.0.0 loaded bt878: Bt878 AUDIO function found (0). ACPI: PCI Interrupt :05:00.1[A] -> GSI 21 (level, low) -> IRQ 21 bt878_probe: card id=[0x11822],[ Twinhan VisionPlus DVB ] has DVB functions. bt878(0): Bt878 (rev 17) at 05:00.1, irq: 21, latency: 64, memory: 0xdfeff000 dvb_bt8xx: identified card0 as bttv0 DVB: registering new adapter (bttv0). dst(0) rdc_8820_reset: Resetting DST dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[0004], enbb=[0004], outhigh=[] dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[0004], enbb=[0004], outhigh=[0004] dst(0) dst_comm_init: Initializing DST. dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[], enbb=[0001], outhigh=[] dst(0) rdc_reset_state: Resetting state machine dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[0002], enbb=[0002], outhigh=[] dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[0002], enbb=[0002], outhigh=[0002] writing [ 00 06 00 00 00 00 00 fa ] dst(0) write_dst: _write_dst error (err == -5, len == 0x08, b0 == 0x00) dst(0) dst_error_recovery: Trying to return from previous errors. dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[], enbb=[], outhigh=[] dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[], enbb=[0001], outhigh=[] dst(0) write_dst: _write_dst error (err == -5, len == 0x08, b0 == 0x00) dst(0) dst_error_recovery: Trying to return from previous errors. dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[], enbb=[], outhigh=[] dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[], enbb=[0001], outhigh=[] dst(0) write_dst: RDC 8820 RESET dst(0) dst_error_bailout: Trying to bailout from previous error. dst(0) rdc_8820_reset: Resetting DST dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[0004], enbb=[0004], outhigh=[] dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[0004], enbb=[0004], outhigh=[0004] dst(0) dst_gpio_outb: mask=[], enbb=[], outhigh=[] dst(0) dst_probe: unknown device. frontend_init: Could not find a Twinhan DST. dvb-bt8xx: A frontend driver was not found for device 109e/0878 subsystem 1822/0001 This is the only bttv card in the machine, but there are a pair of FlexCopII's installed (and working fine). Can anyone suggest anything I can try, or any debugging I can turn on to help? ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 20:55 +0900, timecop wrote: > I noticed one thing, Damn guys, you (all) really need to learn how to quote.. You have lost me completely. Not only because you all sound like a bunch of fish wifes fresh out overdue herrings, but also because it's unclear who you are quoting. I have noticed one thing also. The discussion looks like one that should be held in private between the concerned parties and not on these lists. I'm reading way to much ego and not enough willingness to work together to achieve (what should be) a common goal. Kind regards, -- Greg Tee CISSP, Manager Engineering & Support BIT B.V.| http://www.bit.nl/ Internet Technology | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
Le mardi 10 juillet 2007 13:17, Markus Rechberger a écrit : > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > endresult. > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > merging requests are responsible for that. > > Most people are welcome to participate at the latest work I have, > people who participated at recent discussions about getting the code > which now is in question merged are not welcome anymore. I will also "just shut up", but first I would suggest that you leave this ml, so you won't be annoyed any more by "useless discussions". -- Christophe Thommeret ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Aidan Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/10/07, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is > > derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. Also > > people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it > > and fact is that the code is still available. > > Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. > > I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. > > I suspect there are all sorts of interesting legal issues here. In > particular, the GPL is intended to cover entire works - relicensing > individual source files in a GPLed piece of software in a > non-GPL-compatible way when those files are intended to be combined > with other source files which are still GPLed is a grey area at best. > Since I'm not a lawyer, and I can't afford to hire one, this makes me > want to not touch this code with a bargepole. I suppose I could always > fork the GPL-licensed version, but getting it to compile with new > kernel releases would be a real pain. > > (Incidentally, I assume that, since you say that "em2880-dvb and > xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code", you rewrote em2880-dvb > from scratch at some point. It certainly looks that way, but I know > that I did have some code in em2880-dvb at one point.) > Yes you had some code in there, just that you know some linuxtv people (I don't want to name them here) wrote that the em2880-dvb module is just wrong because of what you did. Since I know about the DVB framework now I have to say that these people who claimed that it's wrong have had no idea about the framework back then and that it was fine what you did. It is not you who went through such discussions, since I managed the code I received these comments and instead that these people sent some patches they just claimed that it was bad and wrong. This community needs a change if it wants to survive and get companies onto the boat, right now it's controlled by a few wannabes who missleaded me in history but who never sent any patches against the repository either to improve the parts which were in question. > > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > > endresult. > > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > > merging requests are responsible for that. > > Basically, I'm left without a working, maintained, legally sound Linux > driver for the hardware I'm using, through no fault of my own (except > perhaps relying on an out-of-tree driver by someone who turns out to > be unable to co-operate with the v4l and dvb developers). > hmm? if it's related to the code on mcentral.de please post a bugreport or feature request; maybe make kernel-links is what you're looking for, please give me some more details about this. thanks, Markus > PS. Sorry for the semi-duplicate email; accidentally forgot to send to list. > -- Markus Rechberger ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Aidan Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I noticed one thing, You sure seem to have plenty of time to argue about utterly irrelevant shit. But you couldn't spare 5 minutes of your life to agree on accepting this code a year ago. I think this is purely your loss at this point, just eat it up, shut up, stop playing lawyers, and get back to coding (or whatever you do). -tc > On 7/10/07, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is > > derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. Also > > people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it > > and fact is that the code is still available. > > Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. > > I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. > > I suspect there are all sorts of interesting legal issues here. In > particular, the GPL is intended to cover entire works - relicensing > individual source files in a GPLed piece of software in a > non-GPL-compatible way when those files are intended to be combined > with other source files which are still GPLed is a grey area at best. > Since I'm not a lawyer, and I can't afford to hire one, this makes me > want to not touch this code with a bargepole. I suppose I could always > fork the GPL-licensed version, but getting it to compile with new > kernel releases would be a real pain. > > (Incidentally, I assume that, since you say that "em2880-dvb and > xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code", you rewrote em2880-dvb > from scratch at some point. It certainly looks that way, but I know > that I did have some code in em2880-dvb at one point.) > > > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > > endresult. > > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > > merging requests are responsible for that. > > Basically, I'm left without a working, maintained, legally sound Linux > driver for the hardware I'm using, through no fault of my own (except > perhaps relying on an out-of-tree driver by someone who turns out to > be unable to co-operate with the v4l and dvb developers). > > PS. Sorry for the semi-duplicate email; accidentally forgot to send to list. > > ___ > linux-dvb mailing list > linux-dvb@linuxtv.org > http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb > ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is > derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. Also > people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it > and fact is that the code is still available. > Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. > I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. I suspect there are all sorts of interesting legal issues here. In particular, the GPL is intended to cover entire works - relicensing individual source files in a GPLed piece of software in a non-GPL-compatible way when those files are intended to be combined with other source files which are still GPLed is a grey area at best. Since I'm not a lawyer, and I can't afford to hire one, this makes me want to not touch this code with a bargepole. I suppose I could always fork the GPL-licensed version, but getting it to compile with new kernel releases would be a real pain. (Incidentally, I assume that, since you say that "em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code", you rewrote em2880-dvb from scratch at some point. It certainly looks that way, but I know that I did have some code in em2880-dvb at one point.) > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > endresult. > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > merging requests are responsible for that. Basically, I'm left without a working, maintained, legally sound Linux driver for the hardware I'm using, through no fault of my own (except perhaps relying on an out-of-tree driver by someone who turns out to be unable to co-operate with the v4l and dvb developers). PS. Sorry for the semi-duplicate email; accidentally forgot to send to list. ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Christoph Pfister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2007 12:08 schrieb Markus Rechberger: > > On 7/10/07, Marcel Siegert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > > On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > > > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is > > > > > > of course GPL. > > > > > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to > > > > > > that step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. > > > > > > It's out of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that > > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged > > > > > into the kernel if it isn't GPL? > > > > > > > > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > > > > > > > > > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases > > > > > on GPL sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the > > > > > MPL is not GPL compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively > > > > > under the MPL and at the same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb > > > > > maincode as a base, you are violating the GPL. > > > > > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good > > > > > insight, for example, the Software Freedom Law Center at > > > > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Jakob > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > > Em28xx mailing list > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > > > > > > at least for my understanding, markus, please explain to me that, > > > if you use v4l/dvb core functions that are licensed GPL, your code IS > > > also GPL automatically, isn't it? > > > > > > and, as you told before, why is there a need to intermediate license to > > > MPL? > > > > Marcel, sorry this code is out of the scope of linuxtv, it's simply > > none of your business; A solution has been discussed with Linus and > > Mauro already. I do not want that my code gets reused by the linuxtv > > project without my authority (eg preventing code stealing). > > > > I'd appreciate if that thread can discontinue at that part, the very > > few active linuxtv developers who participated at the merging threads > > forced me to go another way since I'm not interested in further > > delays, you guys already delayed it for more than 1 year.. so feel > > lucky. > > > > So in case of the few linuxtv devs I would say the code is not > > intended to get compiled; > > In case of endusers I'd say take the code use and test it and submit > > bugreports if there are any, I'm try to answer all the mails on the > > em28xx ML (only very few might be delayed for a certain amount of > > time) > > > > thanks, > > Markus > > Nice try, but I highly doubt that it'll work out. Your code is a derived work > of GPL'ed code (even using tricks like glue code doesn't help _per se_; not > to be derived work would mean that the code can reasonably work without using > any GPL-only bits ...). > So you can't prevent the copyright holders of the GPL'ed code you're using > from enforcing the license (except if they did some dual-licensing or gave > you explicit permission allowing you to use their code in this way). > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. Also people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it and fact is that the code is still available. Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the endresult. Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the merging requests are responsible for that. Most people are welcome to participate at the latest work I have, people who participated at recent discussions about getting the code which now is in question merged are not welcome anymore. thanks, Markus ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
Am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2007 12:08 schrieb Markus Rechberger: > On 7/10/07, Marcel Siegert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is > > > > > of course GPL. > > > > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to > > > > > that step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. > > > > > It's out of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged > > > > into the kernel if it isn't GPL? > > > > > > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > > > > > > > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases > > > > on GPL sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the > > > > MPL is not GPL compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively > > > > under the MPL and at the same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb > > > > maincode as a base, you are violating the GPL. > > > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good > > > > insight, for example, the Software Freedom Law Center at > > > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jakob > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > Em28xx mailing list > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > > > > at least for my understanding, markus, please explain to me that, > > if you use v4l/dvb core functions that are licensed GPL, your code IS > > also GPL automatically, isn't it? > > > > and, as you told before, why is there a need to intermediate license to > > MPL? > > Marcel, sorry this code is out of the scope of linuxtv, it's simply > none of your business; A solution has been discussed with Linus and > Mauro already. I do not want that my code gets reused by the linuxtv > project without my authority (eg preventing code stealing). > > I'd appreciate if that thread can discontinue at that part, the very > few active linuxtv developers who participated at the merging threads > forced me to go another way since I'm not interested in further > delays, you guys already delayed it for more than 1 year.. so feel > lucky. > > So in case of the few linuxtv devs I would say the code is not > intended to get compiled; > In case of endusers I'd say take the code use and test it and submit > bugreports if there are any, I'm try to answer all the mails on the > em28xx ML (only very few might be delayed for a certain amount of > time) > > thanks, > Markus Nice try, but I highly doubt that it'll work out. Your code is a derived work of GPL'ed code (even using tricks like glue code doesn't help _per se_; not to be derived work would mean that the code can reasonably work without using any GPL-only bits ...). So you can't prevent the copyright holders of the GPL'ed code you're using from enforcing the license (except if they did some dual-licensing or gave you explicit permission allowing you to use their code in this way). Christoph ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Marcel Siegert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is of > > > > course GPL. > > > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to that > > > > step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. It's out > > > > of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that work. > > > > > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged into the > > > kernel if it isn't GPL? > > > > > > > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > > > > > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases on GPL > > > sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the MPL is not GPL > > > compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively under the MPL and at > > > the > > > same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb maincode as a base, you are > > > violating > > > the GPL. > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good insight, > > > for > > > example, the Software Freedom Law Center at > > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > > > > > Regards, > > > Jakob > > > > > > ___ > > > Em28xx mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > > > > > > > > at least for my understanding, markus, please explain to me that, > if you use v4l/dvb core functions that are licensed GPL, your code IS > also GPL automatically, isn't it? > > and, as you told before, why is there a need to intermediate license to MPL? > Marcel, sorry this code is out of the scope of linuxtv, it's simply none of your business; A solution has been discussed with Linus and Mauro already. I do not want that my code gets reused by the linuxtv project without my authority (eg preventing code stealing). I'd appreciate if that thread can discontinue at that part, the very few active linuxtv developers who participated at the merging threads forced me to go another way since I'm not interested in further delays, you guys already delayed it for more than 1 year.. so feel lucky. So in case of the few linuxtv devs I would say the code is not intended to get compiled; In case of endusers I'd say take the code use and test it and submit bugreports if there are any, I'm try to answer all the mails on the em28xx ML (only very few might be delayed for a certain amount of time) thanks, Markus ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is of > > > course GPL. > > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to that > > > step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. It's out > > > of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that work. > > > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged into the > > kernel if it isn't GPL? > > > > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > > > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases on GPL > > sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the MPL is not GPL > > compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively under the MPL and at the > > same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb maincode as a base, you are violating > > the GPL. > > > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good insight, for > > example, the Software Freedom Law Center at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > > > Regards, > > Jakob > > > > ___ > > Em28xx mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > > > > at least for my understanding, markus, please explain to me that, if you use v4l/dvb core functions that are licensed GPL, your code IS also GPL automatically, isn't it? and, as you told before, why is there a need to intermediate license to MPL? regards marcel ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] libdvbapi clarification
> The "hole" at bytes 2 and 3 seems like a typical implementation detail > that a library should hide from its users. Wouldn't it be saner to change > the API so that the function takes 16 filter/mask values and adds the > unused bytes itself? That would make sense if linux DVB stuff was written by professionals, but here you're going to find that 'scratching an itch' will take priority over sane, documented interfaces. Oh, and don't even start on documentation. -tc ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is of > > course GPL. > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to that > > step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. It's out > > of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that work. > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged into the > kernel if it isn't GPL? > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases on GPL > sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the MPL is not GPL > compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively under the MPL and at the > same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb maincode as a base, you are violating > the GPL. > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good insight, for > example, the Software Freedom Law Center at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > Regards, > Jakob > > ___ > Em28xx mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > -- Markus Rechberger ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] libdvbapi clarification
On Tue, July 10, 2007 10:56, Marcel Siegert wrote: > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, David Härdeman wrote: >> I'm trying to understand the dvbdemux_set_section_filter function in >> dvp-apps/lib/libdvbapi/dvbdemux.c (lines 74 - 93). >> >> It used to take 16 filter and 16 mask parameters, but then it was >> changed 15 months ago to take 18 filter and 18 mask parameters, >> then it throws away 2 of each: ... > if you filter a section you can filter on e.g. the table id but NOT on the > size ect. > (those are used as byte 2 + 3 of a section) > > so if you would read the source normally, you would think you can filter > on those values. > having the two "unused" values within the filter array it makes life > easier to count the bytes > you want to filter and to set the right mask. > it can be more irretating than usefull, i must admit. Thanks for the prompt reply :) The "hole" at bytes 2 and 3 seems like a typical implementation detail that a library should hide from its users. Wouldn't it be saner to change the API so that the function takes 16 filter/mask values and adds the unused bytes itself? -- David Härdeman ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] saa7146_i2c_writeout: timed out waiting for end of xfer
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 00:16 +0200, Oliver Endriss wrote: [...] > > i'm experiencing a similar problem. using 2.6.19.1 with latest hg dvb > > driver (knc-1 dvb-s) everything works. though, from at least 2.6.19.7 > > on, with the same kernel config and same hardware (same dvb drivers), i > > get those i2c timeouts and, when doing 'modprobe budget-av', not all > > cards get deteced. > > > > kernel: KNC1-5: Could not read MAC from KNC1 card > > kernel: saa7146_i2c_writeout: timed out waiting for end of xfer > > last message repeated 7 times > > budget-av: A frontend driver was not found for device 1131/7146 subsystem > > 1894/0016 > > > > since i'm using the same dvb driver, that problem seems to be triggered > > somewhere else. > > Could you please try the attached patch (saa7146_i2c_retry.diff)? > > If it does not help, please try the second patch > (budget-av_slowi2c.diff). > > Any improvements? hi oliver, actually, both patches help. no more timeouts, and the frontend drivers get loaded correctly (tried each patch separately). tried with latest hg & 2.6.22. though, what's weird: now i also discover those "Disabling IRQ #xx, nobody cared" messages, which some people experienced as well. well, it's no dvb issue. i tried many combinations of kernel parameters with/without acpi/apic, ... disabled almost everything in BIOS, etc. :-/ but the last working version for me is still 2.6.19.1. pm ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] libdvbapi clarification
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, David Härdeman wrote:
> I'm trying to understand the dvbdemux_set_section_filter function in
> dvp-apps/lib/libdvbapi/dvbdemux.c (lines 74 - 93).
>
> It used to take 16 filter and 16 mask parameters, but then it was changed
> 15 months ago to take 18 filter and 18 mask parameters, then it throws
> away 2 of each:
>
> int dvbdemux_set_section_filter(int fd, int pid,
> uint8_t filter[18], uint8_t mask[18],
> int start, int checkcrc)
> {
> struct dmx_sct_filter_params sctfilter;
>
> memset(&sctfilter, 0, sizeof(sctfilter));
> sctfilter.pid = pid;
> memcpy(sctfilter.filter.filter, filter, 1);
> memcpy(sctfilter.filter.filter+1, filter+3, 15);
> memcpy(sctfilter.filter.mask, mask, 1);
> memcpy(sctfilter.filter.mask+1, mask+3, 15);
>
hi,
i think it was done due to following knowledge of the developer
if you filter a section you can filter on e.g. the table id but NOT on the size
ect.
(those are used as byte 2 + 3 of a section)
so if you would read the source normally, you would think you can filter on
those values.
having the two "unused" values within the filter array it makes life easier to
count the bytes
you want to filter and to set the right mask.
it can be more irretating than usefull, i must admit.
>
> What is the purpose of this?
>
> Second, how is the mask used? Would for example a filter value of 0x50 and
> a mask of 0xf0 mean that all sections 0x50 - 0x5f would pass through the
> section filter?
>
yes, the mask is used in that way.
best regards
marcel
___
linux-dvb mailing list
linux-dvb@linuxtv.org
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
[linux-dvb] libdvbapi clarification
I'm trying to understand the dvbdemux_set_section_filter function in
dvp-apps/lib/libdvbapi/dvbdemux.c (lines 74 - 93).
It used to take 16 filter and 16 mask parameters, but then it was changed
15 months ago to take 18 filter and 18 mask parameters, then it throws
away 2 of each:
int dvbdemux_set_section_filter(int fd, int pid,
uint8_t filter[18], uint8_t mask[18],
int start, int checkcrc)
{
struct dmx_sct_filter_params sctfilter;
memset(&sctfilter, 0, sizeof(sctfilter));
sctfilter.pid = pid;
memcpy(sctfilter.filter.filter, filter, 1);
memcpy(sctfilter.filter.filter+1, filter+3, 15);
memcpy(sctfilter.filter.mask, mask, 1);
memcpy(sctfilter.filter.mask+1, mask+3, 15);
What is the purpose of this?
Second, how is the mask used? Would for example a filter value of 0x50 and
a mask of 0xf0 mean that all sections 0x50 - 0x5f would pass through the
section filter?
--
David Härdeman
___
linux-dvb mailing list
linux-dvb@linuxtv.org
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
[linux-dvb] Driver for Pinnacle 200e
Hi all, I would like to help on the driver development for the Pinnacle 200e DVB-T. Just let me know how I can help. I don't have experience in driver developing, but I learn really fast and I can read code easily. Of course I have a 200e unit that I want to contribute to make it work in Linux. I will try to compile the available driver sources and get an idea of what is the status. Best regards, Juan Sé un Mejor Amante del Cine ¿Quieres saber cómo? ¡Deja que otras personas te ayuden! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/reto/entretenimiento.html___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
[linux-dvb] Problem using Avermedia AverTV DVB-T USB2.0 (a800)
Hi, I got an Avermedia AverTV DVB-T USB2.0 (a800) recently. It works fine under WindowsXP. Today I tried it under Ubuntu 6.06. I downloaded http://www.linuxtv.org/downloads/firmware/dvb- usb-avertv-a800-02.fw and put it in /lib/firmware on my PC. Then connect the box to my PC. dmesg gave correct information I think. [17179592.224000] dvb-usb: found a 'AVerMedia AverTV DVB-T USB 2.0 (A800)' in warm state. [17179592.224000] dvb-usb: will pass the complete MPEG2 transport stream to the software demuxer. [17179592.224000] DVB: registering new adapter (AVerMedia AverTV DVB-T USB 2.0 (A800)). [17179592.224000] dib3000: Found a DiBcom 3000P. [17179592.224000] DVB: registering frontend 0 (DiBcom 3000P/M-C DVB-T)... [17179592.224000] input: IR-receiver inside an USB DVB receiver as /class/input/input5 [17179592.224000] dvb-usb: schedule remote query interval to 150 msecs. [17179592.224000] dvb-usb: AVerMedia AverTV DVB-T USB 2.0 (A800) successfully initialized and connected. [17179592.224000] usbcore: registered new driver dvb_usb_a800 lsusb also listed the device correctly. Bus 005 Device 003: ID 07ca:a801 AVerMedia Technologies, Inc. lsmod shows the drivers dvb_usb_a8005636 0 dvb_usb_dibusb_common 8068 1 dvb_usb_a800 dib3000mc 15744 1 dvb_usb_dibusb_common dib3000_common 2560 1 dib3000mc dvb_usb18952 2 dvb_usb_a800,dvb_usb_dibusb_common i2c_core 21904 3 i2c_acpi_ec,dib3000_common,dvb_usb dvb_pll11012 2 dvb_usb_dibusb_common,dvb_usb usbcore 130692 6 dvb_usb_a800,dvb_usb,usbhid,ehci_hcd,uhci_hcd Then I use dvb-apps (scan and szap), however, both failed. I'm sure there is signal on the air and the parameters are set correctly. Do anybody have any idea? I can provide more information if needed. Thanks. Best Regards, Kelvin Wang___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
