Mailing List Archive: MythTV: Users

PVR-150/500 and bttv?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

scier at PostHorizon

Sep 10, 2005, 7:09 PM

Post #1 of 12 (1816 views)
Permalink

PVR-150/500 and bttv?

Apologies for the semi-OT post, but I'm wondering if anybody else here is
successfully running a PVR-150 (or 500) and a bttv-based card in the same
system -- preferably using ATrpms -- and if so, whether you could post your
modprobe.conf.

For background, I'm running FC4, and my new PVR-500 works beautifully, as
does the old bttv card when ivtv isn't present. When trying to use both,
though (yes, I *need* 3 analog tuners! 2 aren't enough! Especially when my
Air2PC doesn't seem to like Northern VA Comcast's QAM... grumble grumble),
I'm getting the following dmesg errors when I try to use both with my latest
modprobe.conf:

Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: disagrees about version of symbol
tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: Unknown symbol
tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bt878: Unknown symbol bttv_read_gpio
Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bt878: Unknown symbol bttv_write_gpio
Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bt878: Unknown symbol bttv_gpio_enable
Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: disagrees about version of symbol
tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: Unknown symbol
tveeprom_hauppauge_analog

The relevant portions of my modprobe.conf:

alias char-major-81 ivtv
alias char-major-81-0 ivtv
alias char-major-81-1 ivtv
alias char-major-81-2 bttv
alias tveeprom tveeprom-ivtv
alias tuner tuner-ivtv
alias msp3400 msp3400-ivtv
options bttv chroma_agc=1 pll=1 radio=0 card=34 tuner=2

Relevant RPMS (almost everything on this system is pure ATrpms-based):

kernel-2.6.12-1.1398_FC4
ivtv-kmdl-2.6.12-1.1398_FC4-0.3.7k-96.rhfc4.at
ivtv-0.3.7k-96.rhfc4.at
ivtv-firmware-dec-2.02.023-4.at
ivtv-firmware-enc-2.04.024-4.at
ivtv-firmware-audio-0.0.1-1.at
bttv-kmdl-2.6.12-1.1398_FC4-0.9.15_20050708_202133-58.rhfc4.at
bttv-0.9.15_20050708_202133-58.rhfc4.at

I imagine one or more of the the alias tveeprom/tuner/msp3400 lines are to
blame, but before getting too deep into a workaround, I was wondering if
it's trivial or not worth fixing.

-spc

--
/- Sean Cier <scier [at] PostHorizon> -\
( Yield, he told the silver triangle. Cough up arcane secret. )
\- http://www.PostHorizon.com/scier -/
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

michael.tiller at gmail

Sep 11, 2005, 2:01 PM

Post #2 of 12 (1756 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

I don't think I'm gonna be much use here because I can't help you with most
of the technical details but I can say that I have run a BTTV and a PVR-150
at the same time. One thing I found (in fact, about the only I can add that
might help you) was that the order of the cards in the PCI slots made a
difference. Unfortunately, I can't tell you what particular configuration
worked, only that it made a difference in my case.

An additional thing to note is that I was not at all with the quality of the
captures I got from my BTTV. The quality of the signal just seemed really
bad when it came through the BTTV card. In fact, I was so dissatisfied with
it that I turned it off.

I don't know if the BTTV card just sucked (it was a Win-TV card) or if there
was some kind of interference with the PVR-150?!? If anybody knows of a
reason why the presence of the PVR-150 should make the BTTV signal suck and
knows a way to address the problem, I'm all ears.

--
Mike

On 9/10/05, Sean Cier <scier [at] posthorizon> wrote:
>
> Apologies for the semi-OT post, but I'm wondering if anybody else here is
> successfully running a PVR-150 (or 500) and a bttv-based card in the same
> system -- preferably using ATrpms -- and if so, whether you could post
> your
> modprobe.conf.
>
> For background, I'm running FC4, and my new PVR-500 works beautifully, as
> does the old bttv card when ivtv isn't present. When trying to use both,
> though (yes, I *need* 3 analog tuners! 2 aren't enough! Especially when my
> Air2PC doesn't seem to like Northern VA Comcast's QAM... grumble grumble),
> I'm getting the following dmesg errors when I try to use both with my
> latest
> modprobe.conf:
>
>
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: disagrees about version of
> symbol
> tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: Unknown symbol
> tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bt878: Unknown symbol bttv_read_gpio
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bt878: Unknown symbol bttv_write_gpio
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bt878: Unknown symbol bttv_gpio_enable
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: disagrees about version of
> symbol
> tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: Unknown symbol
> tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
>
>
> The relevant portions of my modprobe.conf:
>
> alias char-major-81 ivtv
> alias char-major-81-0 ivtv
> alias char-major-81-1 ivtv
> alias char-major-81-2 bttv
> alias tveeprom tveeprom-ivtv
> alias tuner tuner-ivtv
> alias msp3400 msp3400-ivtv
> options bttv chroma_agc=1 pll=1 radio=0 card=34 tuner=2
>
>
> Relevant RPMS (almost everything on this system is pure ATrpms-based):
>
> kernel-2.6.12-1.1398_FC4
> ivtv-kmdl-2.6.12-1.1398_FC4-0.3.7k-96.rhfc4.at
> ivtv-0.3.7k-96.rhfc4.at <http://ivtv-0.3.7k-96.rhfc4.at>
> ivtv-firmware-dec-2.02.023-4.at <http://ivtv-firmware-dec-2.02.023-4.at>
> ivtv-firmware-enc-2.04.024-4.at <http://ivtv-firmware-enc-2.04.024-4.at>
> ivtv-firmware-audio-0.0.1-1.at <http://ivtv-firmware-audio-0.0.1-1.at>
> bttv-kmdl-2.6.12-1.1398_FC4-0.9.15_20050708_202133-58.rhfc4.at
> bttv-0.9.15_20050708_202133-58.rhfc4.at
>
>
> I imagine one or more of the the alias tveeprom/tuner/msp3400 lines are to
> blame, but before getting too deep into a workaround, I was wondering if
> it's trivial or not worth fixing.
>
> -spc
>
> --
> /- Sean Cier <scier [at] PostHorizon> -\
> ( Yield, he told the silver triangle. Cough up arcane secret. )
> \- http://www.PostHorizon.com/scier -/
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>

greg at gregandeva

Sep 11, 2005, 7:39 PM

Post #3 of 12 (1762 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 17:01 -0400, Michael Tiller wrote:

> I don't know if the BTTV card just sucked (it was a Win-TV card) or if
> there was some kind of interference with the PVR-150?!? If anybody
> knows of a reason why the presence of the PVR-150 should make the BTTV
> signal suck and knows a way to address the problem, I'm all ears.

I tried to use a pcHDTV-3000 in the same machine as a PVR-150, and had
the same problem: the PVR-150 looked great, the signal for the 3000
sucked. In my case it turned out to be a signal strength problem. I was
trying to split the signal, and apparently it degraded it enough the
3000 was sensitive to it. The 3000 worked fine without splitter. I
ended up with the same problem when I switched to a PVR-150 and a
PVR-500. The 150 worked great, the 500 had problems with low numbered
channels. Again the 500 worked fine without the splitter, so I ended up
using just the 500 and putting the 150 into my front end system (solves
my problem getting the Streamzap remote I bought to work on the front
end, since the Hauppage remote works fine with the 150).

You might try plugging the cable only into the bttv card and removing
any splitter you might have had to get both cards connected, and see if
the bttv card works better then.

In my case, it's just too long a run. I don't have a cable outlet in the
computer room so I had to bring it through the wall from the living
room. It's a 20 foot cable and there's just no way I can put a splitter
at the end of such a long run. I tried using a signal amplifier and it
helped only a little and the signal on the second card was still not
good enough. I tried swapping cables to rule out a bad cable. I'm
assuming that it's just not possible to put a splitter at the end of a
long run.

--Greg

mtdean at thirdcontact

Sep 11, 2005, 7:49 PM

Post #4 of 12 (1761 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

Greg Woods wrote:

>On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 17:01 -0400, Michael Tiller wrote:
>
>>I don't know if the BTTV card just sucked (it was a Win-TV card) or if
>>there was some kind of interference with the PVR-150?!? If anybody
>>knows of a reason why the presence of the PVR-150 should make the BTTV
>>signal suck and knows a way to address the problem, I'm all ears.
>>
>I tried to use a pcHDTV-3000 in the same machine as a PVR-150, and had
>the same problem: the PVR-150 looked great, the signal for the 3000
>sucked. In my case it turned out to be a signal strength problem.
>
>
As I posted in the other signal strength thread, you should check out:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/ivtv/devel/17953#17953

Mike

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

joevph at yahoo

Sep 12, 2005, 7:28 PM

Post #5 of 12 (1748 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

I've read the thread you you mention, and call me
skeptical, but I don't buy it 100%.

Yes, a poor cable signal can cause all sorts of
problems. But short of doing a comparison between a
PVR-500 in Windows and the same card in Linux, you
just can't say that you have the tuner definitions
100% correct.

I work in the video industry, having worked on a
set-top box, and before that, cable modems. The main
supplier of tuner chips that we use (starts in "B",
ends in "com", you figure the middle out) is the
absolute worst.

When their datasheet isn't outright lying, it's
missing information, and when the datasheet is
complete, the reference code is totally different.
Then, there's also information that is only given to
the largest customers who pay a ton of money.

Right now, I have a PVR-250 that is of quality that is
much greater than my PVR-500 in the same machine. The
TV does show that the signal isn't the greatest - but,
when signal runs through the PVR-500, every now and
then I get wavy lines and static, which is not visible
on the TV, or the PVR-250.

Since I have access to the equipment at work, I'll be
bringing home a cable analyzer to check my signal
level, but not everybody has access to this. I'm
hoping that perhaps an upgrade in the ivtv driver (I'm
using the 0.2 series) will help out. I might just
have to run a Windows/Linux comparison at some point.

-- Joe

--- "Michael T. Dean" <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:

> Greg Woods wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 17:01 -0400, Michael Tiller
> wrote:
> >
> >>I don't know if the BTTV card just sucked (it was
> a Win-TV card) or if
> >>there was some kind of interference with the
> PVR-150?!? If anybody
> >>knows of a reason why the presence of the PVR-150
> should make the BTTV
> >>signal suck and knows a way to address the
> problem, I'm all ears.
> >>
> >I tried to use a pcHDTV-3000 in the same machine as
> a PVR-150, and had
> >the same problem: the PVR-150 looked great, the
> signal for the 3000
> >sucked. In my case it turned out to be a signal
> strength problem.
> >
> >
> As I posted in the other signal strength thread, you
> should check out:
>
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/ivtv/devel/17953#17953
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

greg at gregandeva

Sep 12, 2005, 7:48 PM

Post #6 of 12 (1739 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:28 -0700, Joe Votour wrote:
> I've read the thread you you mention, and call me
> skeptical, but I don't buy it 100%.

Neither did I. I know lots of people who get fine reception without
having to hand-crimp every connection. I am skeptical as to how much
that matters except maybe in a few exceptional cases. But I do know just
from my own experience that the signal degrades when splitters are used,
especially at the end of a long run. The PVR-500 also has a splitter
inside it (it must, to the single input to two tuners) and is therefore
more sensitive to signal degradation than is the 150 (same card, single
tuner). This is by no means intended as expert advice, it is merely what
I have observed in my particular setup.

> I might just
> have to run a Windows/Linux comparison at some point.

I'm all for scientific experimentation to lend credence to or downplay
theories; that would be an interesting test.

--Greg

joevph at yahoo

Sep 12, 2005, 8:18 PM

Post #7 of 12 (1734 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

Greg,

I must say that I'm a software developer, and not a
hardware developer, so I can't say with total
certainty how a PVR-500 actually works.

That said, the set-top box that I was working on has
the same idea as the PVR-500: two tuner chips (the
same chip for both paths), with one coaxial input.
Therefore, it is a "splitter". However, I don't think
that it's the same as a regular splitter - I don't
think that you lose 3.5dB, like you would with a
regular two-way splitter. (I'd have to look at the
schematic and talk with the hardware engineer to be
certain). Plus, if there was such a high loss, then
the engineers should have compensated for it by
driving up the amp a bit (which is generally done in
the software, and not in the hardware).

I'm sure that the LG tuner part is probably cheaper in
quality than previous parts, but I have a hard time
believing it's that crappy. I'd believe a bad run
more than that.

BTW, by hand crimping, I suspect that he means the
coaxial connectors that have to be put on and
tightened with a special tool, and are very tight
(i.e. you have to strip down to the copper wire before
putting them on), versus cheaper connectors that stay
in place via soldering or screw-on methods). There's
definitely a difference between the difference
connector types, we've seen that at the office in the
past (running coax between a CMTS and our cubicles,
for instance).

-- Joe

--- Greg Woods <greg [at] gregandeva> wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:28 -0700, Joe Votour wrote:
> > I've read the thread you you mention, and call me
> > skeptical, but I don't buy it 100%.
>
> Neither did I. I know lots of people who get fine
> reception without
> having to hand-crimp every connection. I am
> skeptical as to how much
> that matters except maybe in a few exceptional
> cases. But I do know just
> from my own experience that the signal degrades when
> splitters are used,
> especially at the end of a long run. The PVR-500
> also has a splitter
> inside it (it must, to the single input to two
> tuners) and is therefore
> more sensitive to signal degradation than is the 150
> (same card, single
> tuner). This is by no means intended as expert
> advice, it is merely what
> I have observed in my particular setup.
>
> > I might just
> > have to run a Windows/Linux comparison at some
> point.
>
> I'm all for scientific experimentation to lend
> credence to or downplay
> theories; that would be an interesting test.
>
> --Greg
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

mtdean at thirdcontact

Sep 12, 2005, 8:26 PM

Post #8 of 12 (1735 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

Joe Votour wrote:

>I've read the thread you you mention, and call me
>skeptical, but I don't buy it 100%.
>
>
Uhhh. OK. If you want to focus on the anthill on top of the mountain
instead of the mountain itself... The point of quoting that post was
not to say that the tuner definition is correct (considering I don't
have a clue which tuner the OP is using)--it's the other 98% of the
content that gives several tips on how to improve signal quality... I
assumed that was clear from the fact that I was replying to (and
quoting) Greg's post where he says, "In my case it turned out to be a
signal strength problem."

>Yes, a poor cable signal can cause all sorts of
>problems. But short of doing a comparison between a
>PVR-500 in Windows and the same card in Linux, you
>just can't say that you have the tuner definitions
>100% correct.
>
>
"The tuner definitions are correct according to the tuner datasheets,"
doesn't say that the tuner definitions are 100% correct... I never
claimed that they were right--only right according to the datasheets... :)

>I work in the video industry, having worked on a
>set-top box, and before that, cable modems. The main
>supplier of tuner chips that we use (starts in "B",
>ends in "com", you figure the middle out) is the
>absolute worst.
>
>When their datasheet isn't outright lying, it's
>missing information, and when the datasheet is
>complete, the reference code is totally different.
>Then, there's also information that is only given to
>the largest customers who pay a ton of money.
>
>
Excellent. Then, with your experience in finding the lies and missing
information in datasheets, I can't wait to see a patch for your tuner
definition posted to the V4L list... I won't be offended if you, or
anyone else, change the definition. I'll be extremely pleased if
someone finds a better definition. That's the point of open-source,
anyway. If I wanted my code to stay as broken as the day I wrote it,
I'd work for a commercial software company. ;)

>Right now, I have a PVR-250 that is of quality that is
>much greater than my PVR-500 in the same machine. The
>TV does show that the signal isn't the greatest - but,
>when signal runs through the PVR-500, every now and
>then I get wavy lines and static, which is not visible
>on the TV, or the PVR-250.
>
>Since I have access to the equipment at work, I'll be
>bringing home a cable analyzer to check my signal
>level, but not everybody has access to this. I'm
>hoping that perhaps an upgrade in the ivtv driver (I'm
>using the 0.2 series) will help out. I might just
>have to run a Windows/Linux comparison at some point.
>
>
Excellent. I'm looking forward to seeing your results. I can't do the
Windows/Linux comparison myself--as I don't have Windows or an RF
modulated feed with which to test the tuner.

Mike

>-- Joe
>
>--- "Michael T. Dean" <mtdean [at] thirdcontact> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Greg Woods wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 17:01 -0400, Michael Tiller
>>>
>>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I don't know if the BTTV card just sucked (it was
>>>>
>>>>
>>a Win-TV card) or if
>>
>>
>>>>there was some kind of interference with the
>>>>
>>>>
>>PVR-150?!? If anybody
>>
>>
>>>>knows of a reason why the presence of the PVR-150
>>>>
>>>>
>>should make the BTTV
>>
>>
>>>>signal suck and knows a way to address the
>>>>
>>>>
>>problem, I'm all ears.
>>
>>
>>>I tried to use a pcHDTV-3000 in the same machine as
>>>
>>>
>>a PVR-150, and had
>>
>>
>>>the same problem: the PVR-150 looked great, the
>>>
>>>
>>signal for the 3000
>>
>>
>>>sucked. In my case it turned out to be a signal
>>>
>>>
>>strength problem.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>As I posted in the other signal strength thread, you
>>should check out:
>>
>>
>>
>http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/ivtv/devel/17953#17953
>
>
>>Mike
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>mythtv-users mailing list
>>mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>>
>>
>>
>http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>mythtv-users mailing list
>mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

mtdean at thirdcontact

Sep 12, 2005, 8:33 PM

Post #9 of 12 (1744 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

Greg Woods wrote:

>On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:28 -0700, Joe Votour wrote:
>
>
>>I've read the thread you you mention, and call me
>>skeptical, but I don't buy it 100%.
>>
>>
>Neither did I. I know lots of people who get fine reception without
>having to hand-crimp every connection. I am skeptical as to how much
>that matters except maybe in a few exceptional cases.
>
Taken directly from the post:
-----
The points listed below should help to improve your signal quality, and,
therefore, your picture quality. Each point will bring varying amounts
of improvement--ranging from not noticeable to "wow" improvements--if
used individually. However, you'll probably get the best improvement
using a combination of suggestions. If you can, I highly recommend
taking all the steps.
-----

I never said it's impossible to use connections that are not
hand-crimped. However, the post concentrated on steps that can be taken
to improve signal quality. And--regardless of how skeptical you may
be--having properly installed, good quality connectors does improve
signal quality. And, TTBOMK, crimp-on connectors (properly installed)
provide more-reliable, better-quality connections than twist-on connectors.

>But I do know just
>from my own experience that the signal degrades when splitters are used,
>especially at the end of a long run. The PVR-500 also has a splitter
>inside it (it must, to the single input to two tuners) and is therefore
>more sensitive to signal degradation than is the 150 (same card, single
>tuner). This is by no means intended as expert advice, it is merely what
>I have observed in my particular setup.
>
>
That makes perfect sense. I hadn't ever really thought about the impact
of using a PVR-500 instead of a PVR-150, but it does sound like it may
be an additional item of concern for signal quality. Even if there's an
amp before the splitter, it's at the end of the run--meaning it would be
amplifying the noise as well as the signal.

Mike
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

mythtv at duncb

Sep 13, 2005, 12:21 PM

Post #10 of 12 (1746 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

Sean Cier wrote:

> I'm getting the following dmesg errors when I try to use both with my
> latest modprobe.conf:
>
>
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: disagrees about version of
> symbol tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: Unknown symbol
> tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bt878: Unknown symbol bttv_read_gpio
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bt878: Unknown symbol bttv_write_gpio
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bt878: Unknown symbol
> bttv_gpio_enable
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: disagrees about version of
> symbol tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
> Sep 10 09:11:00 deepthought kernel: bttv: Unknown symbol
> tveeprom_hauppauge_analog
>
>
The problem is actually to do with the tveeprom module provided by ivtv
disagreeing with your kernel.

Try using the basic tveeprom module direct from the kernel instead of
the one provided by ivtv: (tveeprom-ivtv, you'll also need to remove the
alias in modprobe)

I had this problem very recently and this was the (correct) solution
given to me on the ivtv list.

Dunc
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

scier at PostHorizon

Sep 18, 2005, 6:40 AM

Post #11 of 12 (1721 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

Duncan Brown wrote:
>
> Try using the basic tveeprom module direct from the kernel instead of
> the one provided by ivtv: (tveeprom-ivtv, you'll also need to remove the
> alias in modprobe)

That seems to have fixed it beautifully -- thanks, Duncan! Out of
curiosity, what does the tveeprom module *do*, anyhow?

-spc

--
/- Sean Cier <scier [at] PostHorizon> -\
( Death to Vermin! )
\- http://www.PostHorizon.com/scier -/
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

joevph at yahoo

Sep 18, 2005, 9:11 AM

Post #12 of 12 (1712 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-150/500 and bttv? [In reply to]

The tveeprom module is responsible for reading and
interpreting the contents of the EEPROM (if there is
one) on the TV card.

So, it reads in a stream of bytes, figures out what
card it is, and then retrieves the settings. As new
cards are released and supported, the signatures need
to be updated.

-- Joe

--- Sean Cier <scier [at] PostHorizon> wrote:

> Duncan Brown wrote:
> >
> > Try using the basic tveeprom module direct from
> the kernel instead of
> > the one provided by ivtv: (tveeprom-ivtv, you'll
> also need to remove the
> > alias in modprobe)
>
> That seems to have fixed it beautifully -- thanks,
> Duncan! Out of
> curiosity, what does the tveeprom module *do*,
> anyhow?
>
> -spc
>
> --
> /- Sean Cier
> <scier [at] PostHorizon> -\
> ( Death to Vermin!
> )
> \- http://www.PostHorizon.com/scier
> -/
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads