From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:40:42 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:51925 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759446AbZKYRkj (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:40:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Christoph Bartelmus's message of "25 Nov 2009 18:20:00 +0100") Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Bartelmus Cc: awalls@radix.net, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, j@jannau.net, jarod@redhat.com, jarod@wilsonet.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, mchehab@redhat.com, superm1@ubuntu.com lirc@bartelmus.de (Christoph Bartelmus) writes: > I'm not sure what two ways you are talking about. With the patches posted > by Jarod, nothing has to be changed in userspace. > Everything works, no code needs to be written and tested, everybody is > happy. The existing drivers use input layer. Do you want part of the tree to use existing lirc interface while the other part uses their own in-kernel (badly broken for example) code to do precisely the same thing? We can have a good code for both, or we can end up with "badly broken" media drivers and incompatible, suboptimal existing lirc interface (though most probably much better in terms of quality, especially after Jarod's work). -- Krzysztof Halasa