S2-3200 switching-timeouts on 2.6.38
Hello,
I would like to know if there is any intention to include this patch soon? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/244201/
Currently using 2.6.38 results in switching-timeouts on my S2-3200 and this patch fixes this for good.
So it would be nice to have it in 2.6.39.
Thank you and best regards,
Rico Tzschichholz
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:46:23 +0100 Rico Tzschichholz wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if there is any intention to include this patch soon? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/244201/
There are MANY posted but unmerged patches in patchwork from the linux-media mailing list. What is going on (or not going on) with patch merging?
Quoted 4 lines
Currently using 2.6.38 results in switching-timeouts on my S2-3200 and this patch fixes this for good.
So it would be nice to have it in 2.6.39.
thanks,
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
Quoted 9 lines · Randy Dunlap
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:46:23 +0100 Rico Tzschichholz wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if there is any intention to include this patch soon? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/244201/
There are MANY posted but unmerged patches in patchwork from the linux-media mailing list. What is going on (or not going on) with patch merging?
Actually, quite a lot of effort was put in to get that part right. It does the reverse thing that's to be done.
The revamped version is here [1] If the issue persists still, then it needs to be investigated further.
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09214.html
Best Regards,
Manu
Quoted 11 lines · Manu Abraham
Quoted 9 lines · Randy Dunlap
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:46:23 +0100 Rico Tzschichholz wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if there is any intention to include this patch soon? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/244201/
There are MANY posted but unmerged patches in patchwork from the linux-media mailing list. What is going on (or not going on) with patch merging?
Quoted 6 lines
Actually, quite a lot of effort was put in to get that part right. It does the reverse thing that's to be done.
The revamped version is here [1] If the issue persists still, then it needs to be investigated further.[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09214.html
So the patch state should be "Rejected" and not "Under Review".
Would certainly help us all if the patchwork state was updated whenever a patch actually was processed...
Bjørn
Em 22-03-2011 06:53, Bjørn Mork escreveu:
Quoted 17 lines
Quoted 16 lines · Manu Abraham
Quoted 9 lines · Randy Dunlap
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:46:23 +0100 Rico Tzschichholz wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if there is any intention to include this patch soon? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/244201/
There are MANY posted but unmerged patches in patchwork from the linux-media mailing list. What is going on (or not going on) with patch merging?
Actually, quite a lot of effort was put in to get that part right. It does the reverse thing that's to be done.
The revamped version is here [1] If the issue persists still, then it needs to be investigated further.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09214.html
So the patch state should be "Rejected" and not "Under Review".
Would certainly help us all if the patchwork state was updated whenever a patch actually was processed...
Yes, but the thing is that somebody needs to manually update me about status change, as patchwork doesn't provide any way for it. Patchwork's permission for a project is all or nothing: or you completely own a project, or you have just read-only access. There's no way, currently, for me to delegate a patch to someone without allowing that person to touch at the non-delegated patches. Also, patchwork also doesn't allow me to change contributor status (there's just one global admin that creates and/or modifies account access on patchwork).
Anyway, I've updated the status for #244201.
Thanks,
Mauro.
Quoted 17 lines · Bjørn Mork
Quoted 16 lines · Manu Abraham
Quoted 9 lines · Randy Dunlap
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:46:23 +0100 Rico Tzschichholz wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if there is any intention to include this patch soon? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/244201/
There are MANY posted but unmerged patches in patchwork from the linux-media mailing list. What is going on (or not going on) with patch merging?
Actually, quite a lot of effort was put in to get that part right. It does the reverse thing that's to be done.
The revamped version is here [1] If the issue persists still, then it needs to be investigated further.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09214.html
So the patch state should be "Rejected" and not "Under Review".
Would certainly help us all if the patchwork state was updated whenever a patch actually was processed...
Sure, I could've pointed it out to Mauro, but handling multiple things, that slipped off my mind.
Best Regards,
Manu
Hello Manu,
Quoted 6 lines
Actually, quite a lot of effort was put in to get that part right. It does the reverse thing that's to be done.
The revamped version is here [1] If the issue persists still, then it needs to be investigated further.[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09214.html
I am not sure how this is related to stb6100?
Does that mean the current stb0899 patch [2] isnt ready to be proposed for 2.6.39 yet? Or does the stb6100 patch has a better design to solve this issue which should be adapted for stb0899 then?
I was hoping to see it included before the merge window is closed again.
[2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/244201/
Best regards,
Rico
Quoted 5 lines · Rico Tzschichholz
Quoted 5 lines
Actually, quite a lot of effort was put in to get that part right. It does the reverse thing that's to be done.
The revamped version is here [1] If the issue persists still, then it needs to be investigated further.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09214.html
I am not sure how this is related to stb6100?
Does that mean the current stb0899 patch [2] isnt ready to be proposed for 2.6.39 yet? Or does the stb6100 patch has a better design to solve this issue which should be adapted for stb0899 then?
I believe the point was that the real issue was a noise problem in the stb6100 tuner driver, and that the stb0899 frontend patch just papered over this.
Quoted 3 lines
I was hoping to see it included before the merge window is closed again.
Please test the driver with the patch Manu refers to and report if there still are issues. The patch is now upstream in the 2.6.38 kernel, so testing it should be fairly easy.
Do you still have this issue with a plain 2.6.38 driver?
Bjørn
Hello Rico,
Quoted 9 lines · Rico Tzschichholz
Hello Manu,
Quoted 6 lines
Actually, quite a lot of effort was put in to get that part right. It does the reverse thing that's to be done.
The revamped version is here [1] If the issue persists still, then it needs to be investigated further.[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09214.html
Quoted 8 lines
I am not sure how this is related to stb6100?
Does that mean the current stb0899 patch [2] isnt ready to be proposed for 2.6.39 yet? Or does the stb6100 patch has a better design to solve this issue which should be adapted for stb0899 then?
I was hoping to see it included before the merge window is closed again.
stb0899 is a channel decoder (or demodulator in other words) while the stb6100 is a
tuner which provides I-Q components to the demod.
When a tuner locks to a transponder, in the spectrum in the absence of a signal, it will be contain White (Gaussian) noise. In such a case the demod has a hard time to lock to the signal. In this particular case, we had a bit of luck additionally, ie we found a case where the stb0899 demodulator functioned perfectly well with another tuner, but with the same hardware configuration. This helped in narrowing the bug to the tuner and hence the fix.
The one in patchwork, does modify the step size but that doesn't reduce the white noise, which is something like a lucky dip. (similar to what Bjorn pointed out in another post.) I am not really sure whether modifying the step size of any benefit/disadvantage, but need to do some research on that aspect.
Best Regards,
Manu
]
Hello Manu,
you are absolutely right, thanks for pointing this out. Looking forward to the stb0899-patch inclusion.
Best Regards,
Rico
Quoted 5 lines · Rico Tzschichholz
Hello,
I would like to know if there is any intention to include this patch soon? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/244201/
Quoted 8 lines
Currently using 2.6.38 results in switching-timeouts on my S2-3200 and this patch fixes this for good.
So it would be nice to have it in 2.6.39.
Thank you and best regards,
Rico Tzschichholz
Hello,
I also have a Technotrend S2-3200. Bought it 4 years ago. Support for Linux seemed to be close at the time. I was a bit of a fool for thinking that. It's been on the shelf for most of the time.
Anyway, I've applied that patch, and it turns the S2-3200 from being worth hardly more than a paperweight to a functional DVB-S card. I don't understand why this patch does not get included.
Only DVB-S2 transponders don't consistently lock properly in kaffeine. I'll test what "scan" does tomorrow, see if it's a kaffeine-specific problem or not. But even just DVB-S working properly is a massive difference for this card.
If it helps, I'll check the silicon version of my card tomorrow as well.
Best regards,
P. van Gaans
Quoted 32 lines · P. van Gaans
Quoted 5 lines · Rico Tzschichholz
Hello,
I would like to know if there is any intention to include this patch soon? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/244201/
Quoted 8 lines
Currently using 2.6.38 results in switching-timeouts on my S2-3200 and this patch fixes this for good.
So it would be nice to have it in 2.6.39.
Thank you and best regards,
Rico TzschichholzHello,
I also have a Technotrend S2-3200. Bought it 4 years ago. Support for Linux seemed to be close at the time. I was a bit of a fool for thinking that. It's been on the shelf for most of the time.
Anyway, I've applied that patch, and it turns the S2-3200 from being worth hardly more than a paperweight to a functional DVB-S card. I don't understand why this patch does not get included.
Only DVB-S2 transponders don't consistently lock properly in kaffeine. I'll test what "scan" does tomorrow, see if it's a kaffeine-specific problem or not. But even just DVB-S working properly is a massive difference for this card.
If it helps, I'll check the silicon version of my card tomorrow as well.
Quoted 8 lines
Best regards,
P. van Gaans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hello,
Here I am again. My card can be seen at http://tinypic.com/r/2hewzyu/7
Chip:
C2L STB0899 VQ628NDY 220QQ VQ MLT 22 645
So far, scan-s2 won't compile: "scan.c:51:2: error: #error scan-s2 requires Linux DVB driver API version 5.0!" (I am doing something wrong undoubtedly) and I cannot find a way to make w_scan scan specific frequencies. It must be possible, but right now I can't figure it out. Scan doesn't support DVB-S2.
Perhaps someone else who has an S2-3200 can test this, if not, I will eventually get to it I guess, but I'm not entirely sure when.
Best regards,
Pim