On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:06:12 -0400
> Devin Heitmueller escreveu:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Jelle de
> > Jong wrote:
> > > Funky timing of those mails :D.
> > >
> > > I saw only after sending my mail that Steve was talking about an
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 13:18 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > I didn't know about the 80% utilization cap for isoc, so thanks for
> > providing the reference to that previous thread, which has some pretty
> > interesting information.
>
> Anytime.
Yeah have to agree, thanks so much for
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 13:18 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > I didn't know about the 80% utilization cap for isoc, so thanks for
> > providing the reference to that previous thread, which has some pretty
> > interesting information.
>
> Anytime.
Yeah have to agree, thanks so much for
Em Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:06:12 -0400
Devin Heitmueller escreveu:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Jelle de
> Jong wrote:
> > Funky timing of those mails :D.
> >
> > I saw only after sending my mail that Steve was talking about analog and
> > that this is indeed different. Dual analog tuner suppo
Em Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:02:48 -0400
Devin Heitmueller escreveu:
> Hello Mauro,
>
> As far as I know, the em28xx has no capability to adjust the frame
> rate. It will forward the frames at whatever rate the ITU656 stream
> is delivered from the decoder.
Ok. So, the fps changing will be limited t
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Mauro Carvalho
Chehab wrote:
> I did last year some code optimizations and tests in order to support more
> than one
> em28xx device:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-...@vger.kernel.org/msg01634.html
>
> In summary, a 480 Mbps Usb 2.0 bus can be used u
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Jelle de
Jong wrote:
> Funky timing of those mails :D.
>
> I saw only after sending my mail that Steve was talking about analog and
> that this is indeed different. Dual analog tuner support should be
> possible right? Maybe with some other analog usb chipsets? I d
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Jelle de Jong
> wrote:
>> So I felt like doing �a field test, with my dvb-t test system.
>>
>> Bus 001 Device 008: ID 2040:6502 Hauppauge WinTV HVR-900
>> Bus 001 Device 007: ID 2304:0226 Pinnacle Systems, Inc. [hex] PCTV 330e
>> Bus 001
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Mauro Carvalho
Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:10:38 +0200
> Jelle de Jong escreveu:
>
>> Devin Heitmueller wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > The issue occurs with various different drivers. Basically the issue
>> > is the device attempts to reserve a certain amount of
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Jelle de Jong wrote:
> So I felt like doing a field test, with my dvb-t test system.
>
> Bus 001 Device 008: ID 2040:6502 Hauppauge WinTV HVR-900
> Bus 001 Device 007: ID 2304:0226 Pinnacle Systems, Inc. [hex] PCTV 330e
> Bus 001 Device 005: ID 0b05:173f ASUSTek Co
Em Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:10:38 +0200
Jelle de Jong escreveu:
> Devin Heitmueller wrote:
>
>
>
> > The issue occurs with various different drivers. Basically the issue
> > is the device attempts to reserve a certain amount of bandwidth on the
> > USB bus for the isoc stream, and in the case of a
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
> The issue occurs with various different drivers. Basically the issue
> is the device attempts to reserve a certain amount of bandwidth on the
> USB bus for the isoc stream, and in the case of analog video at
> 640x480 this adds up to about 200Mbps. As a result, conne
Em Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:47:05 -0700
Steve Castellotti escreveu:
> On 07/21/2009 07:32 PM, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
> > I agree that *in theory* you should be able to do two devices. A back
> > of the envelope calculation of 640x480 at 30fps in YUVY capture should
> > be about 148Mbps. That said,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Steve Castellotti wrote:
> On 07/21/2009 07:32 PM, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
>>
>> I agree that *in theory* you should be able to do two devices. A back
>> of the envelope calculation of 640x480 at 30fps in YUVY capture should
>> be about 148Mbps. That said, I don
On 07/21/2009 07:32 PM, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
I agree that *in theory* you should be able to do two devices. A back
of the envelope calculation of 640x480 at 30fps in YUVY capture should
be about 148Mbps. That said, I don't think the scenario you are
describing has really been tested/debugge
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Steve Castellotti wrote:
> On 07/21/2009 06:42 PM, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Steve Castellotti
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We can confirm that a development system running Fedora 11 with the
>>> latest stable kernel (2.6.29.5-191.fc1
On 07/21/2009 06:42 PM, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Steve Castellotti wrote:
We can confirm that a development system running Fedora 11 with the
latest stable kernel (2.6.29.5-191.fc11.i686.PAE), with identical em28xx
devices connected still exhibits the error
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Steve Castellotti wrote:
> Hello everyone-
>
> Apologies in advance for spamming the list, but we're after adding dual
> device support for the existing, GPL'd em28xx tuner driver currently in the
> mainline Linux kernel. We do not have this development resource
Hello everyone-
Apologies in advance for spamming the list, but we're after adding
dual device support for the existing, GPL'd em28xx tuner driver
currently in the mainline Linux kernel. We do not have this development
resource in house and had hoped perhaps someone on the list might be
c
19 matches
Mail list logo
