On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:26:47 +0000 Darron Broad (DB) wrote: DB> It's something I forget to deal with in that patch. A solution DB> would be to allow a device address to be a module param to DB> override the more modern addresses of 0x1e and 0x1f. DB> DB> I can't remember addresses off the top of my head but I believe DB> the modern silver remotes use 0x1f and the older black ones DB> use 0x1e. I think the black one I have came with a now dead DB> DEC2000. DB> DB> The problem with reverting the patch is that it makes modern DB> systems unusable as HTPCs when the television uses RC5. This DB> is a more important IMHO than supporting what in reality is DB> an obsolete remote control. Hi, Maybe there aren't many old remotes out there anymore, but from looking at the table at http://www.sbprojects.com/knowledge/ir/rc5.htm it appears the remote is not doing anything wrong by using RC5 address 0x0 to talk to what could be considered a TV (card). The more fundamental issue here is that both devices/remotes use the same RC5 address - not surprising if you own two devices of the same device class. So I'm all for your suggestion of adding a parameter that will allow the user to either specify the address(es) to accept or ignore. Which of the following options would you consider most convenient for the unknowing user? 1) parameter specifies the only device id that ir-kbd-i2c will accept 2) parameter specifies a 32-bit mask of acceptable device ids. Any device id whose bit is set will be accepted, others will be filtered 3) parameter specifies a 32-bit mask of device ids to filter. Any device id whose bit is set will be filtered, others will be accepted Cheers, - Udo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
