Hi Clemens, on 22 Oct 07 at 09:32, you wrote: >>> lirc [...] > Of course we should. According to <http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/1/373> > and <http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/3/180>, the problem is mostly lack of > developer time to make the code ready for the kernel, which is > _exactly_ what we're talking about here. Jarod already has done a lot of work to bring LIRC driver sources into shape. Please coordinate further work with him. Any help welcome. > There's also the open question of how to keep 2.4 compatibilty without > having to maintain two parallel trees. In ALSA, we have a 'clean' > kernel tree and a set of patches to add the compatibility hacks, but > this is of course still more complex than a single tree. Currently the common understanding is that we try to keep compatibility in the LIRC source tree and remove it using the unifdef tool before submitting patches for the kernel tree. Christoph
