On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
There is an argument to be made that since it may be desirable for
both IR receivers and transmitters to share the same table of remote
control definitions, it might make sense to at least *consider* how
the IR transmitter interface is going to work, even if it is decided
to not implement such a design in the first revision.
Personally, I would hate to see a situation where we find out that we
took a bad approach because nobody considered what would be required
for IR transmitters to reuse the same remote control definition data.
I briefly though about such possibility, but dismissed it with
assumption that we won't transmit the same codes (including "key" codes)
that we receive.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
I could definantly see this happening. the computer receives the 'play'
button from a dvd remote, issues commands to control the audio system, dim
lights, and then sends the 'play' button to the DVD player inside a
cabinet where it can't see the remote directly.
but in any case, it shouldn't be hard to share a table of mappings.
David Lang
--
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
