On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:50:46PM -0400, Andy Walls wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 11:26 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Add new event types for timeout & carrier report
> > > Move timeout handling from ir_raw_event_store_with_filter to
> > > ir-lirc-codec, where it is really needed.
> > > Now lirc bridge ensures proper gap handling.
> > > Extend lirc bridge for carrier & timeout reports
> > >
> > > Note: all new ir_raw_event variables now should be initialized
> > > like that: DEFINE_IR_RAW_EVENT(ev);
> > >
> > > To clean an existing event, use init_ir_raw_event(&ev);
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/media/IR/ene_ir.c | 4 +-
> > > drivers/media/IR/ir-core-priv.h | 13 ++++++-
> > > drivers/media/IR/ir-jvc-decoder.c | 5 +-
> > > drivers/media/IR/ir-lirc-codec.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > drivers/media/IR/ir-nec-decoder.c | 5 +-
> > > drivers/media/IR/ir-raw-event.c | 45 +++++++-------------
> > > drivers/media/IR/ir-rc5-decoder.c | 5 +-
> > > drivers/media/IR/ir-rc6-decoder.c | 5 +-
> > > drivers/media/IR/ir-sony-decoder.c | 5 +-
> > > drivers/media/IR/mceusb.c | 3 +-
> > > drivers/media/IR/streamzap.c | 8 ++-
> > > include/media/ir-core.h | 40 ++++++++++++++++---
> > > 12 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
> > ...
> > > @@ -162,22 +164,48 @@ u32 ir_g_keycode_from_table(struct input_dev *input_dev, u32 scancode);
> > > /* From ir-raw-event.c */
> > >
> > > struct ir_raw_event {
> > > - unsigned pulse:1;
> > > - unsigned duration:31;
> > > + union {
> > > + u32 duration;
> > > +
> > > + struct {
> > > + u32 carrier;
> > > + u8 duty_cycle;
> > > + };
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + unsigned pulse:1;
> > > + unsigned reset:1;
> > > + unsigned timeout:1;
> > > + unsigned carrier_report:1;
> > > };
> >
> > I'm generally good with this entire patch, but the union usage looks a
> > bit odd, as the members aren't of the same size, which is generally
> > what I've come to expect looking at other code.
>
> Having a union with different sized members is perfectly valid C code.
>
> Just look at the definition of the XEvent in Xlib.h. The "int type;" is
> smaller than everything, and the XAnyEvent is smaller than the other
> event types.
>
> The size of the union will be the size of its largest member.
Yeah, no, I know that it'll work, just that most of the unions I've
actually paid any attention to had members all of the same size. Seemed
like sort of an unwritten rule for in-kernel use. But its probably just
fine.
> > I'd be inclined to
> > simply move duty_cycle out of the union and leave just duration and
> > carrier in it.
>
> That's not necessary and it could be confusing depending on where you
> put duty_cycle.
There's that. But without having code that actually uses duty_cycle in a
meaningful way yet, its hard to say for sure. If carrier and duty_cycle
were only being sent out in their own events, you might actually want a
union of duration, carrier and duty_cycle. Though I suspect we'll probably
want to pass along carrier and duty_cycle at the same time.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@xxxxxxxxxx
--
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
