From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757235AbZKWVyk (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:54:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753993AbZKWVyk (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:54:40 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:24630 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752758AbZKWVyj (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:54:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:54:44 -0500 Message-ID: <829197380911231354y764e01b7hc0c5721b3ebf1f26@mail.gmail.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 From: Devin Heitmueller To: Krzysztof Halasa Cc: Christoph Bartelmus , dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, j@jannau.net, jarod@redhat.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, mchehab@redhat.com, superm1@ubuntu.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > lirc@bartelmus.de (Christoph Bartelmus) writes: > >>> I think we shouldn't at this time worry about IR transmitters. >> >> Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly. >> Any interface without transmitter support would be absolutely unacceptable >> for many LIRC users, including myself. > > I don't say don't use a transmitter. > I say the transmitter is not an input device, they are completely > independent functions. I can't see any reason to try and fit both in the > same interface - can you? 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. Devin -- Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs http://www.kernellabs.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:24630 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752758AbZKWVyj (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:54:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:54:44 -0500 Message-ID: <829197380911231354y764e01b7hc0c5721b3ebf1f26@mail.gmail.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 From: Devin Heitmueller To: Krzysztof Halasa Cc: Christoph Bartelmus , dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, j@jannau.net, jarod@redhat.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, mchehab@redhat.com, superm1@ubuntu.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > lirc@bartelmus.de (Christoph Bartelmus) writes: > >>> I think we shouldn't at this time worry about IR transmitters. >> >> Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly. >> Any interface without transmitter support would be absolutely unacceptable >> for many LIRC users, including myself. > > I don't say don't use a transmitter. > I say the transmitter is not an input device, they are completely > independent functions. I can't see any reason to try and fit both in the > same interface - can you? 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. Devin -- Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs http://www.kernellabs.com