Thanks for the invite Chuck. Great to read about your appointment working with Dave by the way. I can confirm that this rocks. To the matter at hand folks: See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233416 for dirty debugging output but essentially: I''m running MythTV and the cx88-dvb driver that loaded with all the 2.6.18-2.6.19 kernels fails to do so with 2.6.20. Running modprobe loads the drivers fine. In the not too distant past there used to be a problem with the blackbird drivers grabbing control of the card(s) before the correct driver did so. I therefore blacklisted the blackbird driver and the correct driver loaded, the clouds cleared and the sun shone once more on green fields. Now it looks like something similar has returned and I can only force the driver to load by adding it to /etc/rc.modules Any ideas? Cheers Chris -- http://www.chruz.com
Chris Brown wrote:> Thanks for the invite Chuck. Great to read about your appointment working > with Dave by the way. I can confirm that this rocks. > > To the matter at hand folks: > > See: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233416 > > for dirty debugging output but essentially: > > I''m running MythTV and the cx88-dvb driver that loaded with all the > 2.6.18-2.6.19 kernels fails to do so with 2.6.20. Running modprobe loads > the > drivers fine. In the not too distant past there used to be a problem with > the blackbird drivers grabbing control of the card(s) before the correct > driver did so. I therefore blacklisted the blackbird driver and the correct > driver loaded, the clouds cleared and the sun shone once more on green > fields. Now it looks like something similar has returned and I can only > force the driver to load by adding it to /etc/rc.modules >What are we supposed to do when this kind of thing happens? It appears that multiple drivers claim to support the same hardware.
Chuck Ebbert wrote:> > What are we supposed to do when this kind of thing happens? It appears that > multiple drivers claim to support the same hardware. > >dunno, but this needs a solution the same happens with tifm_sd/tifm_7xx1 and sdhci a workaround is to blacklist one of this modules. (if you know which one works better for you / which one do you want to use)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:15:32AM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > Chris Brown wrote: > > Thanks for the invite Chuck. Great to read about your appointment working > > with Dave by the way. I can confirm that this rocks. > > > > To the matter at hand folks: > > > > See: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233416 > > > > for dirty debugging output but essentially: > > > > I''m running MythTV and the cx88-dvb driver that loaded with all the > > 2.6.18-2.6.19 kernels fails to do so with 2.6.20. Running modprobe loads > > the > > drivers fine. In the not too distant past there used to be a problem with > > the blackbird drivers grabbing control of the card(s) before the correct > > driver did so. I therefore blacklisted the blackbird driver and the correct > > driver loaded, the clouds cleared and the sun shone once more on green > > fields. Now it looks like something similar has returned and I can only > > force the driver to load by adding it to /etc/rc.modules > > > > What are we supposed to do when this kind of thing happens? It appears that > multiple drivers claim to support the same hardware. Grr, this happens far too often. We have the same with for eg, orinoco and hostap right now. The usual deal is that we either just build the ''best'' driver for that hardware, or if there''s a case where both drivers support the same hardware _and_ some hardware unique to them, we nobble the pci table so that the crappier driver doesn''t load on that hardware. As to which is the best one in this case.. I really don''t know. Or maybe this is a situation where it''s valid to have both drivers loaded? We don''t actually support that right now, but patches went to linux-pci list last week that should be showing up in GregKHs tree adding an alternative method for drivers to bind to a device in situations where it''s possible for two drivers to drive different parts of the same chip. (This case has been showing up more and more recently too.. agp vs edac, matroxfb vs lm_sensors,..) Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On 22/03/07, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:15:32AM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > What are we supposed to do when this kind of thing happens? It appears > that > > multiple drivers claim to support the same hardware. > > Grr, this happens far too often. We have the same with for eg, > orinoco and hostap right now. The usual deal is that we either > just build the ''best'' driver for that hardware, or if there''s a case > where both drivers support the same hardware _and_ some hardware unique > to them, we nobble the pci table so that the crappier driver > doesn''t load on that hardware. > > As to which is the best one in this case.. I really don''t know. > > Or maybe this is a situation where it''s valid to have both drivers loaded? > We don''t actually support that right now, but patches went to linux-pci > list > last week that should be showing up in GregKHs tree adding an alternative > method for drivers to bind to a device in situations where it''s possible > for two drivers to drive different parts of the same chip. > (This case has been showing up more and more recently too.. > agp vs edac, matroxfb vs lm_sensors,..)Taking a look at: http://lwn.net/Articles/212535/ which may be able to shed some light on the changes. Even with the blackbird driver blacklisted, the v4l2 loads but the dvb driver does not. It should be noted that the two co-exist peacefully when loaded but something is preventing the latter from loading - perhaps because the kernel "sees" the driver requirements as being satisfied by the v4l2 module? In any case, in this instance it is just that the cx88-dvb driver is failing to load as opposed to anything more sinister. Cheers Chris -- http://www.chruz.com
Chris Brown wrote:> > > On 22/03/07, *Dave Jones* <davej@redhat.com <mailto:davej@redhat.com>> > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:15:32AM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > What are we supposed to do when this kind of thing happens? It > appears that > > multiple drivers claim to support the same hardware. > > Grr, this happens far too often. We have the same with for eg, > orinoco and hostap right now. The usual deal is that we either > just build the ''best'' driver for that hardware, or if there''s a case > where both drivers support the same hardware _and_ some hardware unique > to them, we nobble the pci table so that the crappier driver > doesn''t load on that hardware. > > As to which is the best one in this case.. I really don''t know. > > Or maybe this is a situation where it''s valid to have both drivers > loaded? > We don''t actually support that right now, but patches went to > linux-pci list > last week that should be showing up in GregKHs tree adding an > alternative > method for drivers to bind to a device in situations where it''s > possible > for two drivers to drive different parts of the same chip. > (This case has been showing up more and more recently too.. > agp vs edac, matroxfb vs lm_sensors,..) > > > Taking a look at: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/212535/ > > which may be able to shed some light on the changes.Yep.> Even with the > blackbird driver blacklisted, the v4l2 loads but the dvb driver does > not. It should be noted that the two co-exist peacefully when loaded but > something is preventing the latter from loading - perhaps because the > kernel "sees" the driver requirements as being satisfied by the v4l2 module? > > In any case, in this instance it is just that the cx88-dvb driver is > failing to load as opposed to anything more sinister.Interestingly enough, I was talking to one of the vl4-dvb maintainers (Michael Krufky) on irc about this very driver two days ago. The cx88-dvb driver is *supposed* to auto-load via a request_module() call in cx8802. Similar for cx88-blackbird. Things broke when support for the Hauppauge HVR1300 was added, because it actually needs *both* cx88-dvb and cx88-blackbird. Upstream v4l-dvb has this fixed, verified by me from 20070302 snapshot cx88-dvb/cx8802 drivers. -- Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com
Jarod Wilson wrote:> Chris Brown wrote: >> >> On 22/03/07, *Dave Jones* <davej@redhat.com <mailto:davej@redhat.com>> >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:15:32AM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: >> >> > What are we supposed to do when this kind of thing happens? It >> appears that >> > multiple drivers claim to support the same hardware. >> >> Grr, this happens far too often. We have the same with for eg, >> orinoco and hostap right now. The usual deal is that we either >> just build the ''best'' driver for that hardware, or if there''s a case >> where both drivers support the same hardware _and_ some hardware unique >> to them, we nobble the pci table so that the crappier driver >> doesn''t load on that hardware. >> >> As to which is the best one in this case.. I really don''t know. >> >> Or maybe this is a situation where it''s valid to have both drivers >> loaded? >> We don''t actually support that right now, but patches went to >> linux-pci list >> last week that should be showing up in GregKHs tree adding an >> alternative >> method for drivers to bind to a device in situations where it''s >> possible >> for two drivers to drive different parts of the same chip. >> (This case has been showing up more and more recently too.. >> agp vs edac, matroxfb vs lm_sensors,..) >> >> >> Taking a look at: >> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/212535/ >> >> which may be able to shed some light on the changes. > > Yep. > >> Even with the >> blackbird driver blacklisted, the v4l2 loads but the dvb driver does >> not. It should be noted that the two co-exist peacefully when loaded but >> something is preventing the latter from loading - perhaps because the >> kernel "sees" the driver requirements as being satisfied by the v4l2 module? >> >> In any case, in this instance it is just that the cx88-dvb driver is >> failing to load as opposed to anything more sinister. > > Interestingly enough, I was talking to one of the vl4-dvb maintainers > (Michael Krufky) on irc about this very driver two days ago. The > cx88-dvb driver is *supposed* to auto-load via a request_module() call > in cx8802. Similar for cx88-blackbird. Things broke when support for the > Hauppauge HVR1300 was added, because it actually needs *both* cx88-dvb > and cx88-blackbird. Upstream v4l-dvb has this fixed, verified by me from > 20070302 snapshot cx88-dvb/cx8802 drivers.So can they send a patch for -stable to fix it in 2.6.20?
Chuck Ebbert wrote:> Jarod Wilson wrote: >> Chris Brown wrote: >>> On 22/03/07, *Dave Jones* <davej@redhat.com <mailto:davej@redhat.com>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:15:32AM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: >>> >>> > What are we supposed to do when this kind of thing happens? It >>> appears that >>> > multiple drivers claim to support the same hardware. >>> >>> Grr, this happens far too often. We have the same with for eg, >>> orinoco and hostap right now. The usual deal is that we either >>> just build the ''best'' driver for that hardware, or if there''s a case >>> where both drivers support the same hardware _and_ some hardware unique >>> to them, we nobble the pci table so that the crappier driver >>> doesn''t load on that hardware. >>> >>> As to which is the best one in this case.. I really don''t know. >>> >>> Or maybe this is a situation where it''s valid to have both drivers >>> loaded? >>> We don''t actually support that right now, but patches went to >>> linux-pci list >>> last week that should be showing up in GregKHs tree adding an >>> alternative >>> method for drivers to bind to a device in situations where it''s >>> possible >>> for two drivers to drive different parts of the same chip. >>> (This case has been showing up more and more recently too.. >>> agp vs edac, matroxfb vs lm_sensors,..) >>> >>> >>> Taking a look at: >>> >>> http://lwn.net/Articles/212535/ >>> >>> which may be able to shed some light on the changes. >> Yep. >> >>> Even with the >>> blackbird driver blacklisted, the v4l2 loads but the dvb driver does >>> not. It should be noted that the two co-exist peacefully when loaded but >>> something is preventing the latter from loading - perhaps because the >>> kernel "sees" the driver requirements as being satisfied by the v4l2 module? >>> >>> In any case, in this instance it is just that the cx88-dvb driver is >>> failing to load as opposed to anything more sinister. >> Interestingly enough, I was talking to one of the vl4-dvb maintainers >> (Michael Krufky) on irc about this very driver two days ago. The >> cx88-dvb driver is *supposed* to auto-load via a request_module() call >> in cx8802. Similar for cx88-blackbird. Things broke when support for the >> Hauppauge HVR1300 was added, because it actually needs *both* cx88-dvb >> and cx88-blackbird. Upstream v4l-dvb has this fixed, verified by me from >> 20070302 snapshot cx88-dvb/cx8802 drivers. > > So can they send a patch for -stable to fix it in 2.6.20?Okay, patches are good to go for both cx88-dvb and dvb-bt8xx autoload support. The cx88-dvb patch is a roll-up of three patches from upstream v4l-dvb. I''ve successfully tested this patch atop 2.6.20 with a pcHDTV HD-3000 card. http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/misc/dvb-updates/linux-2.6-cx88-dvb-autoload.patch The dvb-bt8xx patch is a newly-created patch by myself (with pointers from Michael) that is essentially a clone of the cx88-dvb autoload bits. It works flawlessly in my testing with a pcHDTV HD-2000 card. Its in Michael''s hands now, and he says he''ll get it committed to the v4l-dvb tree this afternoon. http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/misc/dvb-updates/linux-2.6-cx88-dvb-autoload.patch Semi-related to these patches is another cx88-dvb fix that we could optionally add to fix some buffer issues on nxt200x-based cx88-dvb cards: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/misc/dvb-updates/linux-2.6-nxt200x-buffer.patch All three apply cleanly to the current FC6 2.6.20 kernel tree, as Patch30-32. Lemme know if I can provide any further info! -- Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com
Jarod Wilson wrote:> The dvb-bt8xx patch is a newly-created patch by myself (with pointers > from Michael) that is essentially a clone of the cx88-dvb autoload bits. > It works flawlessly in my testing with a pcHDTV HD-2000 card. Its in > Michael''s hands now, and he says he''ll get it committed to the v4l-dvb > tree this afternoon. > > http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/misc/dvb-updates/linux-2.6-cx88-dvb-autoload.patchD''oh, this one should be: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/misc/dvb-updates/linux-2.6-dvb-bt8xx-autoload.patch -- Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com
Jarod Wilson wrote:> Jarod Wilson wrote: >> The dvb-bt8xx patch is a newly-created patch by myself (with pointers >> from Michael) that is essentially a clone of the cx88-dvb autoload >> bits. It works flawlessly in my testing with a pcHDTV HD-2000 card. >> Its in Michael''s hands now, and he says he''ll get it committed to the >> v4l-dvb tree this afternoon. >> >> http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/misc/dvb-updates/linux-2.6-cx88-dvb-autoload.patch > > > D''oh, this one should be: > > http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/misc/dvb-updates/linux-2.6-dvb-bt8xx-autoload.patchAnd of course, I managed to put the upstream version of the patch there, rather than the 2.6.20-based version. Here''s the right one: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/misc/dvb-updates/linux-2.6-20.5t-dvb-bt8xx-autoload.patch The upstream commit can be seen here: http://linuxtv.org/hg/~mkrufky/bt8xx?cmd=changeset;node=328d9710a012;style=gitweb -- Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com