644 replies to this topic

[Ev0]

I don't think any team has HbbTv working on the Solo 4K.

It works on BH, and I am 99% sure it works on openBH too.

[Ev0]

Just checked and HbbTv is working on openBH with Solo4K too

[littlesat]

Bh is closed source.... That is not really helpfull...

[Ev0]

Bh is closed source.... That is not really helpfull...

openBH is OE-A

[littlesat]

Blackhole is different then openblackhole as far I know....

[Ev0]

Blackhole is different then openblackhole as far I know....

fact remains HbbTv is working on both.

[littlesat]

Then the fix should be in open source.... But as far I understand for hbbtv on solo4k we should wait for vu's bps layer change...

[Ev0]

Then the fix should be in open source.... But as far I understand for hbbtv on solo4k we should wait for vu's bps layer change...

looking at the oe-a git, hbbtv was committed for solo4k back in January 2016, so it should be working in all oe-a solo4k images afaik

Edited by Ev0, 19 April 2016 - 23:42.

[littlesat]

Where is the commit and shoud be working != is working

And I'm afraid it is bsp layer stuff... And again it seems oe-a did probably vu's work....

Edited by littlesat, 20 April 2016 - 05:50.

[Rob van der Does]

 And again it seems oe-a did probably vu's work....

That's not a correct assumption.

As you've said yourself several times: PLi has made the choice to leave everything to the manufacturers via the so-called BSP-layer and to concentrate on E2-development. Experience has learned that this often means waiting for the manufacturer (especially in the case of VU+: they seem to forget this all the time).

 

Most OE-A members use developments by the manufacturer directly (so they take them from the source and don't await an active approach from the manufacturer for applying stuff to their repos). This means more swiftly following the manufacturers developments. And on top of that they try to get as much as possible bug-free working in their respective images. That has nothing to do with 'doing the manufacturers work'.

 

So both have a complete different approach to the matter at hand. A choice both parties have made from their own point of view.

[littlesat]

it is clear you really do not understand it... I suppose the whole oe-a team does not understand the reason of a bsp layer... And as long they do not understand thr manufacturers do not need it at all... It is very pity the others do not follow us in the bps layer... I understand as image you are less flexible... But it is the structured way to go! But when others do that work for the manufactures it is not a have to for them....

But now get to the point... Where is patch we need so we can ask VU to push to the bos layer... Or e.g. The merge requesr we could also do there?

Edited by littlesat, 20 April 2016 - 08:23.

[Rob van der Does]

It's a pity that only PLi understands it all; must be a lonely feeling

 

But is has nothing to do with (not) understanding. In an ideal world, form which we are far away in every respect, a BSP-layer would be the answer to ideal image building.

But as I've said before: the aim of PLi is E2-development; the aim of (most) OE-A teams is to make images that support all the features of the supported boxes and hence make them useful for users. It's a choice, it's a different view on what's important.

[Taapat]

Where is patch we need so we can ask VU to push to the bos layer... Or e.g.

 

I think that will be enough if VU in their bsp layer for openpli update hbbtv and opera version to the last.

[Erik Slagter]

Always easy to shout when you have only half of the information. In theory we could already build the webkit based new VU+ HbbTV browser. But it requires massive adaptations in our build environment and we have rejected that. It looks like it's a lot easier to build the browser in more recent OE versions (i.e. master-next), so we might try to do it then/there. Still it's quite a bit of work to get it going, which are don't quite have plenty.

 

I do believe I have explained this before, but in case I didn't, there you are. No more sulking please.

[nemosince1996]

@erik

 

I do not want to bother you but I wrote yesterday about something like OpenPLI to-do-list or preferences in team work to avoid useless questions again. Can you point me where can I find it or could you write some main points?

Something to PIP - I am glad that it is running but it has some limitation. Somebody who implemented it probably does not have 4K TV set (2160p) because I can position PIP only inside upper left quarter on a such tv. Or is there some limitation why it could not be possible?

[nemosince1996]

sorry

 

 

...... to place it everywhere on the screen?

[littlesat]

The pip is indeed bugged in the 2160p output mode... They need to afapt the pip position and size in their drivers...
It also crashes (off on method required) when you try to pip a 4k channel...

[nemosince1996]

Thanks for answer. I observed sometimes switching sound off after PIP switching off.

[Erik Slagter]

nemosince: this bug has been reported to the manufacturer.

Edited by Erik Slagter, 22 April 2016 - 13:55.

[Ronnie1966]

@Erik

Can you please also report the TEARING problem. It's getting pretty annoying.

Thanks ahead.

Greets Ronnie1966