[mythtv-users] HD PVR 2 status check, or alternatives

[Ken Truesdale]

-----Original Message-----
From: mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org
[mailto:mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org] On Behalf Of Gary Buhrmaster
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:43 PM
To: Discussion about MythTV
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] HD PVR 2 status check, or alternatives

I believe we do know, but it may not really be relevant (except for the fact
that those that enjoy reverse engineering devices are a different breed).
As you may (or may not) know, the gen 2 product uses substantially different
components.  There is little (nothing?) to gain by looking at existing
codes, or the dev himself.  It is just new work.

Hauppauge has lately formally contracted with kernellabs for Linux support
for their new devices (if they believe there is a business value in Linux
support).  Since you want future support for manufacturing component
changes(*), you
really want to get Hauppauge to take ownership.    It is also
much cheaper (engineering wise) to be able to avoid having to reverse
engineer the device by having the manufacturer on-board who can provide
design, chip data/errata/software and devices can can be destroyed (by
accident) if you poke the wrong bits into the wrong registers.  I would
expect that your lawyer could work with Hauppauge to provide out a funding
estimate, and then you can arrange to pay them (via kickstarter, or your
"419" windfall) to pay for kernellabs (or, whomever else they choose) to do
the work.  Let us know how your lawyer is doing (Hauppauge corporate
contacts are available on their web site).

Lastly, one might want to consider instead writing the driver for the new
HD-PVR rocket rather than the HD-PVR2 (although I do not know (or care)
enough about them to know what the differences are).

Gary

(*) Ask all those that are getting "new gen" xxx5 products with the new
decoder chip (stealth upgrades too, they come in the old boxes).  Currently
no support in Linux (although Hauppauge is paying kernellabs to update the
drivers, because they have taken ownership).
-----------------------------------


Great info, Gary, thanks.  No, I did not know that the PVR 2 used
substantially different components.  And therefore, no I didn't realize that
there is little to nothing to be gained by looking at existing code.  Oh
well.  

Even so, I suppose it would be possible to repeat the process all over with
new hardware.  And yet as you point out, that means no ownership by the
manufacturer.  And yes, that would definitely be preferable for the reasons
you state.  

Lawyers?  Ha!  No, definitely don't have any of those on staff!  I was just
figuring that perhaps that would be an interesting way of gauging interest
and simultaneously making a developer feel better about taking on a task -
knowing that it was not an empty challenge.  

Oh well, harsh landing back here in reality.  


Ken.