[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091126231436.GC6936@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:14:36 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mario Limonciello <superm1@...ntu.com>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
Janne Grunau <j@...nau.net>,
Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was:
Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:27:08PM +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > No. All the other API functions there work with 32 bits for scancodes.
>
> We don't need them, do we? We need a new ioctl for changing key mappings
> anyway (a single ioctl for setting the whole table I think), and we can
> have arbitrary length of scan codes there.
Unless we determine that we 100% need bigger size of scancode then the
current ioctls are just fine. Why do we _need_ an ioctl to load the whole
tabe? Are you concerned about speed with which the keymap is populated?
I don't think it would be an issue.
--
Dmitry
--
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