On 10/27/2010 05:41 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
I think the rule is "no regressions". Was cx231xx broken by some recent
change or was it broken forever?
Anyway the patch itself is in -next as of next-20101019. What the hell
is -next good for then if people skip it? (Yes, 10 workdays is too few
for people to really test kernels. Especially when we are talking about
DVB.)
What about this hunk? Could it be a source of the problem?
@@ -326,24 +352,7 @@ int tda18271_init_regs(struct dvb_frontend *fe)
regs[R_EB22] = 0x48;
regs[R_EB23] = 0xb0;
- switch (priv->small_i2c) {
- case TDA18271_08_BYTE_CHUNK_INIT:
- tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x00, 0x08);
- tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x08, 0x08);
- tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x10, 0x08);
- tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x18, 0x08);
- tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x20, 0x07);
- break;
- case TDA18271_16_BYTE_CHUNK_INIT:
- tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x00, 0x10);
- tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x10, 0x10);
- tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x20, 0x07);
- break;
- case TDA18271_39_BYTE_CHUNK_INIT:
- default:
tda18271_write_regs(fe, 0x00, TDA18271_NUM_REGS);
- break;
- }
/* setup agc1 gain */
regs[R_EB17] = 0x00;
Previously it wrote 3 values, now it writes only one.
I will test whatever you send me. I have nothing to test yet...
So I personally NACK this patch whatever it means.
thanks,
--
js
--