Jump to content


Photo

Which image to reflash a DM8000


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #21 athoik

  • PLi® Core member
  • 8,458 posts

+327
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 13:41

@christophecvr, can you build an image with latest libc and the following patch applied in enigma2?
 
diff --git a/lib/dvb/frontend.cpp b/lib/dvb/frontend.cpp
index a838ee0..411ca54 100644
--- a/lib/dvb/frontend.cpp
+++ b/lib/dvb/frontend.cpp
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#include <linux/version.h>
 #include <linux/dvb/version.h>

 #include <lib/dvb/dvb.h>
@@ -528,7 +529,7 @@ int eDVBFrontend::openFrontend()
                        }
                        strncpy(m_description, fe_info.name, sizeof(m_description));

-#ifdef DTV_ENUM_DELSYS
+#ifdef DTV_ENUM_DELSYS && LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(3,3,0)
                        struct dtv_property p[1];
                        p[0].cmd = DTV_ENUM_DELSYS;
                        struct dtv_properties cmdseq;

Attached Files


Wavefield T90: 0.8W - 1.9E - 4.8E - 13E - 16E - 19.2E - 23.5E - 26E - 33E - 39E - 42E - 45E on EMP Centauri DiseqC 16/1
Unamed: 13E Quattro - 9E Quattro on IKUSI MS-0916

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #22 Beeker

  • PLi® Contributor
  • 1,602 posts

+203
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 15:54

Patch does not work..But this do :)

 

diff --git a/lib/dvb/frontend.cpp b/lib/dvb/frontend.cpp
index a838ee0..411ca54 100644
--- a/lib/dvb/frontend.cpp
+++ b/lib/dvb/frontend.cpp
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#include <linux/version.h>
 #include <linux/dvb/version.h>
 
 #include <lib/dvb/dvb.h>
@@ -528,7 +529,7 @@ int eDVBFrontend::openFrontend()
             }
             strncpy(m_description, fe_info.name, sizeof(m_description));
 
-#ifdef DTV_ENUM_DELSYS
+#ifndef DTV_ENUM_DELSYS
             struct dtv_property p[1];
             p[0].cmd = DTV_ENUM_DELSYS;
             struct dtv_properties cmdseq;

 

 

So it seems && LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(3,3,0) does not do his job well.  another solution is required..

 

DM8000 build with libc-headers 3.16.


Edited by Beeker, 7 December 2014 - 15:55.

Dreambox dm920, Uclan Ustym4Kpro, Gigablue UHD TRIO 4K and Dreambox dm8000. Wavefrontier T55 13.0|19.2|23.5|28.2 + Ziggo.


Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #23 athoik

  • PLi® Core member
  • 8,458 posts

+327
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:00

So it seems && LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(3,3,0) does not do his job well.  another solution is required..
DM8000 build with libc-headers 3.16.


Installing libc-3.16 install's also the following "linux/version.h"

#define LINUX_VERSION_CODE 200704
#define KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + (c))
So everything that depends on KERNEL_VERSION is borked! ;)
Wavefield T90: 0.8W - 1.9E - 4.8E - 13E - 16E - 19.2E - 23.5E - 26E - 33E - 39E - 42E - 45E on EMP Centauri DiseqC 16/1
Unamed: 13E Quattro - 9E Quattro on IKUSI MS-0916

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #24 Beeker

  • PLi® Contributor
  • 1,602 posts

+203
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:09

Hmm..ok..But this is a start.. dvb-s and dvb-c is working now.


Dreambox dm920, Uclan Ustym4Kpro, Gigablue UHD TRIO 4K and Dreambox dm8000. Wavefrontier T55 13.0|19.2|23.5|28.2 + Ziggo.


Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #25 athoik

  • PLi® Core member
  • 8,458 posts

+327
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:18

At least now is clear what the problem is!

1. Newer libc headers define's DTV_ENUM_DELSYS
2. libc-3.16 installs "linux/version.h" with LINUX_VERSION_CODE as 3.16 and everything that depends on KERNEL_VERSION is borked.

Really the OE guys are totally burned out?

Edited by athoik, 7 December 2014 - 16:19.

Wavefield T90: 0.8W - 1.9E - 4.8E - 13E - 16E - 19.2E - 23.5E - 26E - 33E - 39E - 42E - 45E on EMP Centauri DiseqC 16/1
Unamed: 13E Quattro - 9E Quattro on IKUSI MS-0916

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #26 Beeker

  • PLi® Contributor
  • 1,602 posts

+203
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:24

I heard that before..

 

Should it be a problem to build every box on the same way..independent of kernel.Cause they use the same libc-headers now.


Edited by Beeker, 7 December 2014 - 16:26.

Dreambox dm920, Uclan Ustym4Kpro, Gigablue UHD TRIO 4K and Dreambox dm8000. Wavefrontier T55 13.0|19.2|23.5|28.2 + Ziggo.


Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #27 Beeker

  • PLi® Contributor
  • 1,602 posts

+203
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:33

He stupid me...sorry i am building for DM8000 only...forget last post.


Dreambox dm920, Uclan Ustym4Kpro, Gigablue UHD TRIO 4K and Dreambox dm8000. Wavefrontier T55 13.0|19.2|23.5|28.2 + Ziggo.


Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #28 MiLo

  • PLi® Core member
  • 14,055 posts

+298
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:37

You cannot use a macro to detect the kernel version. If you have something that depends on the kernel version, you MUST make that a runtime check.


The KERNEL_VERSION returning 3.16 is therefore correct - it's the newest that the libc will support.


(PS: Don't confuse the "libc" and "kernel-headers" versions. The libc has version 2.20, which has been in use for several weeks now. The kernel headers SHOULD be the latest available, regardless of the actual kernel used for a particular bus).
Real musicians never die - they just decompose

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #29 athoik

  • PLi® Core member
  • 8,458 posts

+327
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:44

You cannot use a macro to detect the kernel version. If you have something that depends on the kernel version, you MUST make that a runtime check.


Really? http://sourceforge.n...dde1123e995b74/
Wavefield T90: 0.8W - 1.9E - 4.8E - 13E - 16E - 19.2E - 23.5E - 26E - 33E - 39E - 42E - 45E on EMP Centauri DiseqC 16/1
Unamed: 13E Quattro - 9E Quattro on IKUSI MS-0916

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #30 athoik

  • PLi® Core member
  • 8,458 posts

+327
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:47

(PS: Don't confuse the "libc" and "kernel-headers" versions. The libc has version 2.20, which has been in use for several weeks now. The kernel headers SHOULD be the latest available, regardless of the actual kernel used for a particular bus).


I am not, i didn't use the full name openembedded-core/meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_3.16.bb
Wavefield T90: 0.8W - 1.9E - 4.8E - 13E - 16E - 19.2E - 23.5E - 26E - 33E - 39E - 42E - 45E on EMP Centauri DiseqC 16/1
Unamed: 13E Quattro - 9E Quattro on IKUSI MS-0916

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #31 MiLo

  • PLi® Core member
  • 14,055 posts

+298
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:48

Try this one, it just tries the ioctl and it that fails, falls back on the old code. That should work for any kernel (provided that the driver returns an error for unsupported calls).

A more proper fix would be to check the resulting error on the boxes with old kernels. It's probably EINVAL or ENOTSUPP, and only that return should trigger the fallback (my example patch will also use the fallback when the failure is due to something else).

Attached Files


Edited by MiLo, 7 December 2014 - 16:50.

Real musicians never die - they just decompose

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #32 MiLo

  • PLi® Core member
  • 14,055 posts

+298
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:54

You cannot use a macro to detect the kernel version. If you have something that depends on the kernel version, you MUST make that a runtime check.


Really? http://sourceforge.n...dde1123e995b74/


This is a module that gets built into the kernel, it is not compiled against libc.
Real musicians never die - they just decompose

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #33 athoik

  • PLi® Core member
  • 8,458 posts

+327
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:55

This is a module that gets built into the kernel, it is not compiled against libc.


So, this one will use the correct version.h. Ok it makes sence.
Wavefield T90: 0.8W - 1.9E - 4.8E - 13E - 16E - 19.2E - 23.5E - 26E - 33E - 39E - 42E - 45E on EMP Centauri DiseqC 16/1
Unamed: 13E Quattro - 9E Quattro on IKUSI MS-0916

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #34 MiLo

  • PLi® Core member
  • 14,055 posts

+298
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 16:56

(PS: Don't confuse the "libc" and "kernel-headers" versions. The libc has version 2.20, which has been in use for several weeks now. The kernel headers SHOULD be the latest available, regardless of the actual kernel used for a particular bus).


I am not, i didn't use the full name openembedded-core/meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_3.16.bb


What I meant is, there is no such thing as "libc-3.16".
Real musicians never die - they just decompose

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #35 athoik

  • PLi® Core member
  • 8,458 posts

+327
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 17:01

Try this one, it just tries the ioctl and it that fails, falls back on the old code. That should work for any kernel (provided that the driver returns an error for unsupported calls).

A more proper fix would be to check the resulting error on the boxes with old kernels. It's probably EINVAL or ENOTSUPP, and only that return should trigger the fallback (my example patch will also use the fallback when the failure is due to something else).


It works, nice!

Frontend 0 is not compatible with DVB-T2
Frontend 0 is not compatible with DVB-T
Frontend 0 is not compatible with DVB-C
Frontend 0 is compatible with DVB-S2
Frontend 0 is compatible with DVB-S
Frontend 0 is not compatible with ATSC

Wavefield T90: 0.8W - 1.9E - 4.8E - 13E - 16E - 19.2E - 23.5E - 26E - 33E - 39E - 42E - 45E on EMP Centauri DiseqC 16/1
Unamed: 13E Quattro - 9E Quattro on IKUSI MS-0916

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #36 MiLo

  • PLi® Core member
  • 14,055 posts

+298
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 17:07

Could you check the return code (errno), and/or make a proper patch for E2? (indentation needs fixing too). Then someone from PLi can push it for tonight's build.
Real musicians never die - they just decompose

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #37 athoik

  • PLi® Core member
  • 8,458 posts

+327
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 17:13

Could you check the return code (errno), and/or make a proper patch for E2? (indentation needs fixing too). Then someone from PLi can push it for tonight's build.


Sure, give me some time check what errno we get.
Wavefield T90: 0.8W - 1.9E - 4.8E - 13E - 16E - 19.2E - 23.5E - 26E - 33E - 39E - 42E - 45E on EMP Centauri DiseqC 16/1
Unamed: 13E Quattro - 9E Quattro on IKUSI MS-0916

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #38 Erik Slagter

  • PLi® Core member
  • 46,969 posts

+541
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 17:15

I'll check later. You might want to include a "revert" commit as well ;)


* Wavefrontier T90 with 28E/23E/19E/13E via SCR switches 2 x 2 x 6 user bands
I don't read PM -> if you have something to ask or to report, do it in the forum so others can benefit. I don't take freelance jobs.
Ik lees geen PM -> als je iets te vragen of te melden hebt, doe het op het forum, zodat anderen er ook wat aan hebben.


Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #39 athoik

  • PLi® Core member
  • 8,458 posts

+327
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 17:24

I'll check later. You might want to include a "revert" commit as well ;)


Well it's a sanity check (it wont harm if everything is correct), but on the other hand it's better to crash to understand that something has miserably fail?
Wavefield T90: 0.8W - 1.9E - 4.8E - 13E - 16E - 19.2E - 23.5E - 26E - 33E - 39E - 42E - 45E on EMP Centauri DiseqC 16/1
Unamed: 13E Quattro - 9E Quattro on IKUSI MS-0916

Re: Which image to reflash a DM8000 #40 Erik Slagter

  • PLi® Core member
  • 46,969 posts

+541
Excellent

Posted 7 December 2014 - 17:26

I think it's interesting to know it things don't appear to work as expected and therefore indeed I'd opt for a crash (in this case).


* Wavefrontier T90 with 28E/23E/19E/13E via SCR switches 2 x 2 x 6 user bands
I don't read PM -> if you have something to ask or to report, do it in the forum so others can benefit. I don't take freelance jobs.
Ik lees geen PM -> als je iets te vragen of te melden hebt, doe het op het forum, zodat anderen er ook wat aan hebben.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users