Re: [PATCH 7/8] IR: extend ir_raw_event and do refactoring

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>]

Em 08-09-2010 20:02, Andy Walls escreveu:
> On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:27 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
 
>>>>  I'd be inclined to
>>>> simply move duty_cycle out of the union and leave just duration and
>>>> carrier in it.
>>>
>>> That's not necessary and it could be confusing depending on where you
>>> put duty_cycle.
>>
>> There's that. But without having code that actually uses duty_cycle in a
>> meaningful way yet, its hard to say for sure. If carrier and duty_cycle
>> were only being sent out in their own events, you might actually want a
>> union of duration, carrier and duty_cycle. Though I suspect we'll probably
>> want to pass along carrier and duty_cycle at the same time.
> 
> I suspect you're right on that.  I don't have any experience with
> hardware that can actually estimate carrier freq or duty cycle.  I
> suspect they can be measured together using edge detection on both
> rising and falling edges.

As duty cycle is not currently used, the better is to just remove it from
the struct, adding it on a separate patch, together with a code that will
need it.

Cheers,
Mauro