Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Apple remote support

["David Härdeman" <david@hardeman.nu>]

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:11:47PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>Well, here's what I sent along on Friday:
>
>https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/321592/
>
>Gives us support for using the full 32-bit codes right now w/o having
>to change any tables yet, but does require a modparam to skip the
>checksum checks, unless its an apple remote which we already know the
>vendor bytes for. I do think I'm ultimately leaning towards just doing
>the full 32 bits for all nec extended though -- optionally, we might
>include a modparam to *enable* the checksum check for those that want
>strict compliance (but I'd still say use the full 32 bits). The only
>issue I see with going to the full 32 right now is that we have all
>these nec tables with only 24 bits, and we don't know ... oh, wait,
>no, nevermind... We *do* know the missing 8 bits, since they have to
>fulfill the checksum check for command ^ not_command. So yeah, I'd say
>32-bit scancodes for all nec extended, don't enforce the checksum by
>default with a module option (or sysfs knob) to enable checksum
>compliance.

32 bit scancodes for *all* NEC, not only NEC extended. The "strict"
check will still be provided, just that it's done as part of the
keytable lookup.

-- 
David Härdeman