Mauro,
comments in-line.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
<mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Em 30-09-2011 15:41, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
On 09/30/11 19:07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 29-09-2011 18:22, Lutz Sammer escreveu:
Another version of
http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6307
http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/6510
which was superseded or rejected, but I don't know why.
Probably because of the same reason of this patch [1]:
patch -p1 -i
patches/lmml_8023_v2_stb0899_fix_slow_and_not_locking_dvb_s_transponder_s.patch
--dry-run -t -N
patching file drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 358.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c.rej
drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
I'll mark this one as rejected, as it doesn't apply upstream[2].
[1] http://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/8023/
[2] at tree/branch: git://linuxtv.org/media_tree.git staging/for_v3.2
Please test if the changes made upstream to solve a similar trouble
fixes your issue.
If not, please rebase your patch on the top of it and resend.
Thanks,
Mauro
In stb0899_status stb0899_check_data the first read of STB0899_VSTATUS
could read old (from previous search) status bits and the search fails
on a good frequency.
With the patch more transponder could be locked and locks about 2*
faster.
Manu,
Could you please review this one-line patch?
Signed-off-by: Lutz Sammer<johns98@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c
b/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c
index d70eee0..8eca419 100644
--- a/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c
+++ b/drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stb0899_algo.c
@@ -358,6 +358,7 @@ static enum stb0899_status
stb0899_check_data(struct stb0899_state *state)
else
dataTime = 500;
+ stb0899_read_reg(state, STB0899_VSTATUS); /* clear old status
bits */
stb0899_write_reg(state, STB0899_DSTATUS2, 0x00); /* force
search loop */
while (1) {
/* WARNING! VIT LOCKED has to be tested before
VIT_END_LOOOP */
Please add in these comments, in case you want to apply the change. I
am neither for the patch, nor against it.
- In fact, it doesn't hurt to read STATUS just before LOCK test.
- I wasn't able to find any noticeable difference in LOCK acquisition.
- Nowhere, I was able to find that reading VSTATUS, clears the
Read-Only bits set by the onchip microcontroller. The above comment
could be wrong at least, as far as I can say.
But that said, if the change does really help (thinking of strange
issues with some Silicon cuts)
Acked-by: Manu Abraham<manu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Manu
