115 replies to this topic

[Dimitrij]

"Loop out" does not work on solo2 in Pli image.

For example:

image BH, "loop out" everything works fine for solo2 .

What would the developers of Pli on this?

Edited by Dima73, 30 June 2013 - 16:26.

[Dimitrij]

BH

NimManager.py

	def linkNIMs(self, sec, nim1, nim2):
		print "link tuner", nim1, "to tuner", nim2
#		if nim2 == (nim1 - 1):
#			self.linkInternally(nim1)
#
# for internally connect tuner A to B
		self.linkInternally(nim1)
		sec.setTunerLinked(nim1, nim2)

[Taykun345]

If I understood correctly OpenPLi refused to add this box specific hack.

[Erik Slagter]

Yes you are correct. It's actually called "loop through"   

 

It works, though, if you connect the source to tuner B and then loop that back to tuner A (I've been told).

 

We are not too keen to implement YET another VU+ driver bug workaround in enigma.

[Dimitrij]

We are not too keen to implement YET another VU+ driver bug workaround in enigma.

But it is not difficult to organize the verification model of the receiver in NimManager.py(def linkNIMs).

Members solo2 openPli believe the best image.
They then what is to blame?
It is not hard to go to meet them.

[Erik Slagter]

I already sacrificed my soul last week by implementing an ugly hack especially for the VU+ Solo2, to make the remote control work again...

 

VU+ Solo2 owners can loop the other way around or complain to VU+

[Dimitrij]

I already sacrificed my soul last week by implementing an ugly hack especially for the VU+ Solo2, to make the remote control work again...

This is the right decision.
Users do not have to suffer from such problems, it is necessary to think about it first.

+1

[pieterg]

Users do not suffer, they can loop from B-->A

[Dimitrij]

Users do not suffer, they can loop from B-->A

To my knowledge, this option(B-->A) does not work.

[Rob van der Does]

Users do not suffer, they can loop from B-->A

To my knowledge, this option(B-->A) does not work.

Correct: it needs the nimmanager to be adapted.

[racer82]

Confirmed.
"loop through" not works for solo2.

[Nagra]

Confirmed.
"loop through" not works for solo2.

[Rob van der Does]

 

Users do not suffer, they can loop from B-->A

To my knowledge, this option(B-->A) does not work.

Correct: it needs the nimmanager to be adapted.

On the VTi-forum they made a patch for the NimMager in PLi; that seems to be working fine.

 

Again: it's only to support the looptrough from Tuner B --> Tuner A (the other way around will never work).

[Erik Slagter]

Ah that's why I never got it working, even with this patch.

 

Yet ANOTHER bug

Edited by Erik Slagter, 1 July 2013 - 09:17.

[Rob van der Does]

Yet ANOTHER bug

Not sure you what call 'another' now, but the need to adapt the NimManager was there since the Solo2 was born.

 

If you refer to looptrough from A --> B doesn't work: that's not a bug but a hardware limitation.

NB: you see exactly the same on the GigaBlue Quad (which uses the same chipset as the Solo2; only there it is B --> A that doesn't work (due to the different tuner layout on the M/B)).

Edited by SatKiekerd, 1 July 2013 - 09:24.

[Erik Slagter]

NB: you see exactly the same on the GigaBlue Quad (which uses the same chipset as the Solo2; only there it is B --> A that doesn't work (due to the different tuner layout on the M/B)).

I can't imagine, for now I'm still convinced that's something you can solve in driver abstraction, as is the issue of the requirement to loop B to A.

[malakudi]

So, VU+ just named the tuners with the wrong sequence and then requires a "patch" in nim manager? If tuner B was A and A was B, no patch in nim manager would be needed, correct?

[Rob van der Does]

NB: you see exactly the same on the GigaBlue Quad (which uses the same chipset as the Solo2; only there it is B --> A that doesn't work (due to the different tuner layout on the M/B)).

I can't imagine, for now I'm still convinced that's something you can solve in driver abstraction, as is the issue of the requirement to loop B to A.

Both GB and VU state that only one tuner can be looped through and both have consulted Broadcom about the issue. As a driver can only connect outputs that are available, I assume that one tuner simply doesn't have that output.

 

 

So, VU+ just named the tuners with the wrong sequence and then requires a "patch" in nim manager? If tuner B was A and A was B, no patch in nim manager would be needed, correct?

I'm not sure about that: I don't know if the NimManager has been patched for the Quad.

 

But in all honesty: I don't think that the fact that only one tuner can be looped-through is of any concern: one simply has to know it.

And I agree that cosmetic it would have been nicer if on the VU it would have been Tuner A that could establish the loopthrough.

 

BTW: It's not just a matter of renaming: both tuner have actually been mounted on the M/B the other way around (compared to the Quad).

[littlesat]

So, VU+ just named the tuners with the wrong sequence and then requires a "patch" in nim manager? If tuner B was A and A was B, no patch in nim manager would be needed, correct?

Crazy... if this is the fact then also GigaBlue made the same "mistake"....
 

[WanWizard]

Or both blindly "copied" an existing (reference) design (or one from the other...).