Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:44:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:44:49 -0500 Received: from lsb-catv-1-p021.vtxnet.ch ([212.147.5.21]:38665 "EHLO almesberger.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:44:41 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:14:26 +0100 From: Werner Almesberger To: Gerd Knorr Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BTTV detection broken in 2.4.0-test11-pre5 Message-ID: <20001118141426.B23033@almesberger.net> In-Reply-To: <20001117013157.A21329@almesberger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from kraxel@bytesex.org on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 08:08:55PM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Gerd Knorr wrote: > It simply did'nt work correctly and often used to misdetect > random bt848 cards as either MIRO or Hauppauge (which where the first > available cards). Well, this means there's yet another mandatory __setup parameter :-( Should it be called bttv_card or bt484_card (i.e. are there cases where a user would want to override the card detection for non-848 bttv cards ?) Likewise, in my radio patch, I called the parameter bt848_radio, following the naming convention chosen for the config option. If there are other chips, this may not be a good idea. Should I rename this one to bttv_radio or are there no radios on non-848 chips ? (I'll make a patch with both setup functions, since the documentation changes overlap anyway.) - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH Werner.Almesberger@epfl.ch / /_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/