[pvrusb2] pvrusb2 vs. em8300
isely at isely.net
Thu Feb 16 23:07:07 CST 2006
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Michael Roitzsch wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>> What I was hoping to see was that perhaps some alien I2C modules
>> were trying to attach to the pvrusb2's I2C bus in the broken. But
>> that clearly is not happening here.
> That would have been too easy, wouldn't it? ;)
Yeah, it would have been. But I can think of no other area where the two
drivers might interfere. See my other post about this; it's still
possible that interference might be happening...
>> I diff'ed your log snapshots and the only substantial difference
>> (as you point out) is the loading of the firmware. To answer your
>> earlier question, it is not required that the pvrusb2 driver load
>> the device's controller firmware every time. Basically, once the
>> PVR USB2 hardware has its firmware (pvrusb2.f1 in this case)
>> downloaded, then it never needs to be loaded again until the device
>> is power cycled.
> Oh, I didn't know that.
>> An interesting experiment might be to power cycle the PVR USB2
>> hardware when the em8300 driver is present. In that case, the
>> pvrusb2 driver MUST load the device's firmware and you should see
>> that in the log. If that still isn't happening, then we've got a
>> strong clue to investigate.
> That's not it either. I did a power cycle and compared the logs. This
> time it actually loads the firmware, which leaves us with zero
> significant differences between the working and non-working logs. (Of
> course, it does not work after the power cycle either.)
Ignore my other message. You've already done the experiment I was asking
for. I should have checked this message first.
I don't know what else to suggest here. Anyone? Any chance you and Roger
can compare things some more?
| Mike Isely | PGP fingerprint
Spammers Die!! | | 03 54 43 4D 75 E5 CC 92
| isely @ pobox (dot) com | 71 16 01 E2 B5 F5 C1 E8
More information about the pvrusb2