pvrxxx, linux code and modules

Rick C. Petty rick-freebsd at kiwi-computer.com
Mon Apr 16 22:31:14 UTC 2007

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:45:13AM -0400, Jim Stapleton wrote:
> >> I'd like to be able to keep an eye on this, and see if there's any way
> >> I can help or suggest if possible. (For example, I would like a
> >> tuner/input selector device that I could cat/echo commands into).
> >
> >why?
> It'd be nice to have a trivial form of control that doesn't need me to
> run any unusual commands.
> Right now, I user the pvr250[I hit tab here] command, but if I could
> simply do an echo/redirection, it would feel a lot more natural to me
> I guess (more UNIXy), and since it would be interfacing the device
> directly, I wouldn't get the obnoxious bktr warnings.

The pvr250-setchannel does interface with the device directly.  I don't
believe cat is any more unixy-- or are you suggesting that programs like
atacontrol and mount and ifconfig should all take input redirection for
their commands?  The setchannel program is essentially the same as
atacontrol for cxm devices.  Maybe it could be renamed cxmcontrol, if you

I think the setchannel is exactly unixy-- a small program which provides a
simple interface to a device driver.

I guess I don't understand what would be more natural..  Maybe give an
example of how other devices are more natural/unixy.  I also don't
understand how the more natural way would prevent the obnoxious warnings.

I'm all for renaming this to cxm_control or cxmcontrol or similar.  It's
not just for pvr250s anymore..

-- Rick C. Petty

More information about the freebsd-multimedia mailing list