From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] IR: extend ir_raw_event and do refactoring Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:49:01 -0300 Message-ID: <4C8820ED.4070402@infradead.org> References: <1283808373-27876-1-git-send-email-maximlevitsky@gmail.com> <1283808373-27876-8-git-send-email-maximlevitsky@gmail.com> <1283964646.6372.90.camel@morgan.silverblock.net> <20100908172708.GH22323@redhat.com> <1283986953.29812.24.camel@morgan.silverblock.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:41831 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753140Ab0IHXtG (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2010 19:49:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1283986953.29812.24.camel@morgan.silverblock.net> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Walls Cc: Jarod Wilson , Jarod Wilson , Maxim Levitsky , lirc-list@lists.sourceforge.net, =?UTF-8?B?RGF2aWQgSMOkcmRlbWFu?= , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.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