From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25819 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757730Ab0J2NqF (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:46:05 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9TDk4Vk022230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:46:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4CCAD01A.3090106@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:46:02 -0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jarod Wilson CC: linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Apple remote support References: <20101029031131.GE17238@redhat.com> <20101029031530.GH17238@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20101029031530.GH17238@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: Sender: Em 29-10-2010 01:15, Jarod Wilson escreveu: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:11:31PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: >> I've got one of those tiny little 6-button Apple remotes here, now it can >> be decoded in-kernel (tested w/an mceusb transceiver). > > Oh yeah, RFC, because I'm not sure if we should have a more generic "skip > the checksum check" support -- I seem to recall discussion about it in the > not so recent past. And a decoder hack for one specific remote is just > kinda ugly... Yeah, I have the same doubt. One possibility would be to simply report a 32 bits code, if the check fails. I don't doubt that we'll find other remotes with a "NEC relaxed" protocol, with no checksum at all. Cheers, Mauro.