MePo tries to load x10 remote modules although there is no X10 hardware and x10 is disabled (1 Viewer)

megahorst

Super User
  • Team MediaPortal
  • Super User
  • July 8, 2006
    879
    259
    Home Country
    Germany Germany
    MediaPortal Version: 1.4.0

    Description
    I have mentioned that MePo tries to load x10 drivers although there is no x10 hardware and x10 is disabled in the config. This trying to load an x10 module causes a delay while resuming.
    Code:
    [2013-07-05 22:33:37,056] [Log	] [MPMain ] [INFO ] - X10 debug: Could not get interface

    Steps to Reproduce:
    resume Mepo client and search for x10 in the log.
     

    Attachments

    • MediaPortal.xml
      72.5 KB
    Last edited:

    megahorst

    Super User
  • Team MediaPortal
  • Super User
  • July 8, 2006
    879
    259
    Home Country
    Germany Germany
    Bump
    Nobody else with this entry in the logfile?
     

    Vasilich

    Portal Pro
    August 30, 2009
    3,394
    1,170
    Germany, Mayence
    Home Country
    Russian Federation Russian Federation
    as @megahorst wrote in his post:
    there is 5 seconds delay before this log entry
    [2013-07-05 22:33:32,059] [Log ] [PS StandbyWakeup] [DEBUG] - PS: Signal client activity to the remote TvServer
    [2013-07-05 22:33:37,056] [Log ] [MPMain ] [INFO ] - X10 debug: Could not get interface
    and it can be that this 5 seconds delay is happening because MP tries to initialize non-present X10 interface.
     

    mm1352000

    Retired Team Member
  • Premium Supporter
  • September 1, 2008
    21,577
    8,224
    Home Country
    New Zealand New Zealand
    Those log entries are from different threads - it is not a fair analysis.
    Actually we should be looking at this:
    [2013-07-05 22:32:59,286] [Log ] [MPMain ] [DEBUG] - Main: WM_DEVICECHANGE (Event: DBT_DEVNODES_CHANGED)
    ...
    [2013-07-05 22:33:37,056] [Log ] [MPMain ] [INFO ] - X10 debug: Could not get interface
    So, if this were caused by X10 it would be taking ~37 seconds. This is extremely unlikely. I think more likely the issue is related to HDMI stuff.
     

    megahorst

    Super User
  • Team MediaPortal
  • Super User
  • July 8, 2006
    879
    259
    Home Country
    Germany Germany
    So, if this were caused by X10 it would be taking ~37 seconds. This is extremely unlikely. I think more likely the issue is related to HDMI stuff.
    You are right. A new version of the HDMI CEC-Remote plugin and the new version of the Latest Media Handler nearly solved the delay issue that I have seen from time to time.

    It is not totally gone. I think at least one other plugin can cause delays when resuming. Do you have any hints for debugging this? You are describing that checking the timestamps of the logfiles is not sufficient ...

    One other thing:
    Don't you think that it should be avoided to load modules (the X10 modules) when they are unchecked in the configuration?
     
    Last edited:

    mm1352000

    Retired Team Member
  • Premium Supporter
  • September 1, 2008
    21,577
    8,224
    Home Country
    New Zealand New Zealand
    You are right. A new version of the HDMI CEC-Remote plugin and the new version of the Latest Media Handler nearly solved the delay issue that I have seen from time to time.
    I'm glad. :)

    It is not totally gone. I think at least one other plugin can cause delays when resuming. Do you have any hints for debugging this? You are describing that checking the timestamps of the logfiles is not sufficient ...
    Checking timestamps is okay as long as there are appropriate log entries. You just have to be careful that you are interpreting the entries correctly - particularly in relation to threading.

    One other thing:
    Don't you think that it should be avoided to load modules (the X10 modules) when they are unchecked in the configuration?
    The X10 modules are not actually loaded - the code only checks if an X10 interface is available. I guess this might be to avoid problems in the case where the plugin is enabled but the X10 interface is not present. Anyhow I'm not familiar with the code so I wouldn't want to speculate about why the code is the way it is...
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Top Bottom