Patchwork UBUNTU: [Upstream] lirc - Fix Hauppauge TV Card is detected as Leadtek IR

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Benjamin Drung
Date Aug. 16, 2010, noon
Message ID <1281960047.2008.179.camel@deep-thought>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/61804/
State Rejected
Delegated to: Leann Ogasawara
Headers show

Comments

Benjamin Drung - Aug. 16, 2010, noon
From: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com>

OriginalLocation: http://lirc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lirc/lirc/drivers/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c?r1=1.71&r2=1.72
BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/550369

Signed-off-by: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@ubuntu.com>
---
 ubuntu/lirc/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c |   32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Tim Gardner - Aug. 23, 2010, 5:28 p.m.
On 08/16/2010 06:00 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> From: Benjamin Drung<bdrung@ubuntu.com>
>
> OriginalLocation: http://lirc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lirc/lirc/drivers/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c?r1=1.71&r2=1.72
> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/550369
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Drung<bdrung@ubuntu.com>
> ---
>   ubuntu/lirc/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c |   32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
>   1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>

Benjamin, Mario - is this something we still need given that the lirc 
DKMS package fixes the problem?
Mario Limonciello - Aug. 23, 2010, 5:47 p.m.
Tim:

No we don't need this - it's fixed already both by the DKMS package as well
as the patchset bringing the version up to 0.8.7.

Thanks,

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:28, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>wrote:

> On 08/16/2010 06:00 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>
>> From: Benjamin Drung<bdrung@ubuntu.com>
>>
>> OriginalLocation:
>> http://lirc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lirc/lirc/drivers/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c?r1=1.71&r2=1.72
>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/550369
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Drung<bdrung@ubuntu.com>
>> ---
>>  ubuntu/lirc/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c |   32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
>>  1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>>
> Benjamin, Mario - is this something we still need given that the lirc DKMS
> package fixes the problem?
>
> --
> Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
>
Tim Gardner - Aug. 23, 2010, 5:54 p.m.
The 0.8.7 patch set is for Maverick. I assumed Benjamin's patch is for 
Lucid, which is what the bug report indicates.

rtg

On 08/23/2010 11:47 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> Tim:
>
> No we don't need this - it's fixed already both by the DKMS package as well
> as the patchset bringing the version up to 0.8.7.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:28, Tim Gardner<tim.gardner@canonical.com>wrote:
>
>> On 08/16/2010 06:00 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>>
>>> From: Benjamin Drung<bdrung@ubuntu.com>
>>>
>>> OriginalLocation:
>>> http://lirc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lirc/lirc/drivers/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c?r1=1.71&r2=1.72
>>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/550369
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Drung<bdrung@ubuntu.com>
>>> ---
>>>   ubuntu/lirc/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c |   32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>   1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>> Benjamin, Mario - is this something we still need given that the lirc DKMS
>> package fixes the problem?
>>
>> --
>> Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
>>
>
>
>
Mario Limonciello - Aug. 23, 2010, 6:09 p.m.
Ah, I didn't think he was submitting it for Lucid.  We haven't traditionally
fixed things like in the kernel by SRU for Lirc.  I would say the better
venue for this SRU is the DKMS package in Lucid.  When someone has had
issues with the kernel modules, we have had them install the DKMS package,
and patch modules that way, so no reason SRU can't be the same.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:54, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>wrote:

> The 0.8.7 patch set is for Maverick. I assumed Benjamin's patch is for
> Lucid, which is what the bug report indicates.
>
> rtg
>
>
> On 08/23/2010 11:47 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>
>> Tim:
>>
>> No we don't need this - it's fixed already both by the DKMS package as
>> well
>> as the patchset bringing the version up to 0.8.7.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:28, Tim Gardner<tim.gardner@canonical.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  On 08/16/2010 06:00 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>>>
>>>  From: Benjamin Drung<bdrung@ubuntu.com>
>>>>
>>>> OriginalLocation:
>>>>
>>>> http://lirc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lirc/lirc/drivers/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c?r1=1.71&r2=1.72
>>>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/550369
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Drung<bdrung@ubuntu.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  ubuntu/lirc/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c |   32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>  1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Benjamin, Mario - is this something we still need given that the lirc
>>> DKMS
>>> package fixes the problem?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
>
Tim Gardner - Aug. 23, 2010, 6:20 p.m.
OK, I've updated the linux/lucid part of the bug to "won't fix".

On 08/23/2010 12:09 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> Ah, I didn't think he was submitting it for Lucid.  We haven't traditionally
> fixed things like in the kernel by SRU for Lirc.  I would say the better
> venue for this SRU is the DKMS package in Lucid.  When someone has had
> issues with the kernel modules, we have had them install the DKMS package,
> and patch modules that way, so no reason SRU can't be the same.
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:54, Tim Gardner<tim.gardner@canonical.com>wrote:
>
>> The 0.8.7 patch set is for Maverick. I assumed Benjamin's patch is for
>> Lucid, which is what the bug report indicates.
>>
>> rtg
>>
>>
>> On 08/23/2010 11:47 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>
>>> Tim:
>>>
>>> No we don't need this - it's fixed already both by the DKMS package as
>>> well
>>> as the patchset bringing the version up to 0.8.7.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:28, Tim Gardner<tim.gardner@canonical.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   On 08/16/2010 06:00 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   From: Benjamin Drung<bdrung@ubuntu.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> OriginalLocation:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lirc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lirc/lirc/drivers/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c?r1=1.71&r2=1.72
>>>>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/550369
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Drung<bdrung@ubuntu.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   ubuntu/lirc/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c |   32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>>   1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   Benjamin, Mario - is this something we still need given that the lirc
>>>> DKMS
>>>> package fixes the problem?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
>>
>
>
>
Benjamin Drung - Sept. 3, 2010, 2:54 p.m.
Am Montag, den 23.08.2010, 12:20 -0600 schrieb Tim Gardner:
> On 08/23/2010 12:09 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > Ah, I didn't think he was submitting it for Lucid.  We haven't traditionally
> > fixed things like in the kernel by SRU for Lirc.  I would say the better
> > venue for this SRU is the DKMS package in Lucid.  When someone has had
> > issues with the kernel modules, we have had them install the DKMS package,
> > and patch modules that way, so no reason SRU can't be the same.
>
> OK, I've updated the linux/lucid part of the bug to "won't fix".

I fail to see why this bug should only be fixed in the lirc package and
not in the kernel package. Why ship a buggy lirc module in the kernel
and let the user search for the workaround "install the DKMS package".

PS: Please avoid top posting.

Patch

diff --git a/ubuntu/lirc/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c b/ubuntu/lirc/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c
index dca6b51..2db5a64 100644
--- a/ubuntu/lirc/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c
+++ b/ubuntu/lirc/lirc_i2c/lirc_i2c.c
@@ -491,20 +491,23 @@  static int ir_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
 		ir->l.add_to_buf = add_to_buf_pv951;
 		break;
 	case 0x71:
-#ifdef I2C_HW_B_CX2341X
-		if (adap->id == (I2C_ALGO_BIT | I2C_HW_B_BT848) ||
-		    adap->id == (I2C_ALGO_BIT | I2C_HW_B_CX2341X)) {
-#else
-		if (adap->id == (I2C_ALGO_BIT | I2C_HW_B_BT848)) {
+
+
+
+#ifdef I2C_HW_B_CX2388x
+		/* Leadtek Winfast PVR2000 or Hauppauge HVR-1300 */
+		if (adap->id == (I2C_ALGO_BIT | I2C_HW_B_CX2388x))
+			strlcpy(ir->c.name, "Hauppauge HVR1300", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
+		else
 #endif
+		{
 			/*
 			 * The PVR150 IR receiver uses the same protocol as
 			 * other Hauppauge cards, but the data flow is
 			 * different, so we need to deal with it by its own.
 			 */
 			strlcpy(ir->c.name, "Hauppauge PVR150", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
-		} else /* I2C_HW_B_CX2388x */
-			strlcpy(ir->c.name, "Hauppauge HVR1300", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
+		}
 		ir->l.code_length = 13;
 		ir->l.add_to_buf = add_to_buf_haup_pvr150;
 		break;
@@ -515,19 +518,18 @@  static int ir_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
 		break;
 	case 0x18:
 	case 0x1a:
-#ifdef I2C_HW_B_CX2341X
-		if (adap->id == (I2C_ALGO_BIT | I2C_HW_B_BT848) ||
-		    adap->id == (I2C_ALGO_BIT | I2C_HW_B_CX2341X)) {
+#ifdef I2C_HW_B_CX2388x
+		if (adap->id == (I2C_ALGO_BIT | I2C_HW_B_CX2388x)) {
+			strlcpy(ir->c.name, "Leadtek IR", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
+			ir->l.code_length = 8;
+			ir->l.add_to_buf = add_to_buf_pvr2000;
+		} else {
 #else
-		if (adap->id == (I2C_ALGO_BIT | I2C_HW_B_BT848)) {
+		{
 #endif
 			strlcpy(ir->c.name, "Hauppauge IR", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
 			ir->l.code_length = 13;
 			ir->l.add_to_buf = add_to_buf_haup;
-		} else { /* I2C_HW_B_CX2388x */
-			strlcpy(ir->c.name, "Leadtek IR", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
-			ir->l.code_length = 8;
-			ir->l.add_to_buf = add_to_buf_pvr2000;
 		}
 		break;
 	case 0x30: