Re: [PATCH] hdpvr: enable IR part

[Andy Walls <awalls@md.metrocast.net>]

On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 07:50 -0500, Andy Walls wrote:
> Jarod Wilson <jarod@wilsonet.com> wrote:

> >Forgot to mention: I think it was suggested that one could use ir-kbd-i2c
> >for receive and lirc_zilog for transmit, at the same time. With ir-kbd-i2c
> >already loaded, lirc_zilog currently won't bind to anything.


> With my newly hacked lirc_zilog, try using the 'tx_only' parameter
> please.  It's not quite ready yet, but I'd like to know if it can
> bind.

I have now tested this.

Using the 'tx_only' module parameter to lirc_zilog appears to allow
ir-kbd-i2c and lirc_zilog to coexist, for I2C subsystem binding at
least.

It does not appear to matter what order the two modules are loaded. I
tried it both ways.


However, lirc_zilog sharing of Z8 is not fully functional yet.  I need
to change things to have the bridge drivers provide a IR transceiver
mutex to both lirc_zilog and ir-kbd-i2c.  lirc_zilog and ir-kbd-i2c
would use that mutex for exclusive access to the Z8 when needed, if it
was provided by the bridge driver.

I view proper sharing of the Z8 as an important requirement, because of
two use cases:

1. User only wants to use the Z8 for IR Rx.  User doesn't want to fetch
the lirc_zilog required firmware or perform any LIRC setup.

2. User only wants to use the Z8 for IR Tx.  User uses some other
ir-kbd-i2c supported receiver and remote IR Rx.

Maybe use case #2 is too rare to worry about?
However, if one accepts both use cases as valid, then ir-kbd-i2c must
support the Z8, and lirc_zilog must be able to coexist with ir-kbd-i2c.

Proper sharing of the Z8 is, however, lower on my to-do list than fixing
some internal lirc_zilog problems.

Regards,
Andy