[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m36390rhzp.fsf@intrepid.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:31:06 +0100
From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To: Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@...nellabs.com>
Cc: Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
j@...nau.net, jarod@...hat.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
mchehab@...hat.com, superm1@...ntu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure
Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@...nellabs.com> writes:
> There is an argument to be made that since it may be desirable for
> both IR receivers and transmitters to share the same table of remote
> control definitions, it might make sense to at least *consider* how
> the IR transmitter interface is going to work, even if it is decided
> to not implement such a design in the first revision.
>
> Personally, I would hate to see a situation where we find out that we
> took a bad approach because nobody considered what would be required
> for IR transmitters to reuse the same remote control definition data.
I briefly though about such possibility, but dismissed it with
assumption that we won't transmit the same codes (including "key" codes)
that we receive.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists