On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi again Mike, > > On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:25:19 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:35:55 -0500 (CDT), Mike Isely wrote: > > > I thought we were going to leave the pvrusb2 driver out of this since > > > I've already got a change ready that also includes additional logic to > > > take into account the properties of the hardware device (i.e. only > > > activate ir-kbd-i2c when we know it has a chance of working). > > > > Hmm, I thought that our latest discussions had (at least partly) > > obsoleted your patches. Remember that we want to always instantiate > > ir_video I2C devices even when ir-kbd-i2c can't driver them, otherwise > > lirc won't be able to bind to the devices in question as soon as the > > legacy binding model is gone. So the conditionals in your second patch > > (which is all that makes it differ from mine) are no longer desirable. Jean: The differences between my patch(es) and yours are: 1. My patch only attempts to bind the driver if the hardware actually supports it. 2. My patch selects the right I2C address for the case(s) where it makes sense to bind. 3. My patch provides a module option to completely disable binding. You are probably thinking about (3) but you forgot that I had also taken care of (1). Difference (1) is why I don't want your patch. If your patch gets merged I will have to partially redo my patch to make (1) work again. When I had issued my pull request to Mauro (which he didn't pull), there were actually 2 patches. The first one dealt with (1) and the second dealt with (2) and (3), while taking advantage of (1). Had Mauro pulled those patches at that time then you could have made further changes on top without losing (1). But since he didn't, it's best just to leave the pvrusb2 driver alone and I'll make the needed additional change(s) there after your stuff is merged. > > > > I'll work on lirc patches today or tomorrow, so that lirc doesn't break > > when my patches hit mainline. > > Speaking of this: do you know all the I2C addresses that can host IR > devices on pvrusb2 cards? I understand that the only address supported > by ir-kbd-i2c is 0x18, but I also need to know the addresses supported > by lirc_i2c and possibly lirc_zilog, if you happen to know this. Right now I only care about 0x18 (for 29xxx and early 24xxx devices). I noticed the thread where Andy got IR reception to work with ir-kbd-i2c using 0x71 (lirc_zilog type) and I suspect that same set of ir-kbd-i2c changes will probably work with the pvrusb2 driver for MCE 24xxx and HVR-1900/HVR-1950 devices. But I figured once Andy's stuff gets into ir-kbd-i2c I'd simply test for this and if it worked I would make the appropriate adjustments in the pvrusb2 driver to enable ir-kbd-i2c binding in those cases as well (an easy change). However even with that change, there are other pvrusb2-driven devices that cannot support ir-kbd-i2c. -Mike -- Mike Isely isely @ pobox (dot) com PGP: 03 54 43 4D 75 E5 CC 92 71 16 01 E2 B5 F5 C1 E8 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
