On 11/30/09 13:34, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Christoph Bartelmus wrote:
Hi Mauro,
I just don't want to change a working interface just because it could be
also implemented in a different way, but having no other visible advantage
than using more recent kernel features.
I agree. The main reasons to review the interface is:
1) to avoid any overlaps (if are there any) with the evdev interface;
Use lirc for raw samples.
Use evdev for decoded data.
Hardware/drivers which can handle both can support both interfaces.
IMHO it makes no sense at all to squeeze raw samples through the input
layer. It looks more like a serial line than a input device. In fact
you can homebrew a receiver and connect it to the serial port, which was
quite common in pre-usb-ir-receiver times.
2) to have it stable enough to be used, without changes, for a long
time.
It isn't like lirc is a new interface. It has been used in practice for
years. I don't think API stability is a problem here.
True, but even if we want to merge lirc drivers "as-is", the drivers will
still need changes, due to kernel CodingStyle, due to the usage of some API's
that may be deprecated, due to some breakage with non-Intel architectures, due
to some bugs that kernel hackers may discover, etc.
I assumed this did happen in already in preparation of this submission?
cheers,
Gerd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
