On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 02:35:56PM +0100, Sean Young wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:23:00AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:14:06 +0100
> > Sean Young <sean@xxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:41:57AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> -snip-
> > > > -#define LIRC_SET_REC_DUTY_CYCLE _IOW('i', 0x00000016, __u32)
> > >
> > > Also remove LIRC_CAN_SET_REC_DUTY_CYCLE and
> > > LIRC_CAN_SET_REC_DUTY_CYCLE_RANGE.
> >
> > Removing the "LIRC_CAN" macros can break userspace, as some app could
> > be using it to print the LIRC features. That's why I opted to keep
> > them, but to document that those features are unused - this is at
> > the next patch (04/20).
>
> How is that different from removing the ioctls? Might as well go the whole
> hog.
Ah you meant that if someone later adds a new feature then we might reuse
an existing bit. Oops, sorry.
> Also note that LIRC_CAN_SET_REC_DUTY_CYCLE has the same value as
> LIRC_CAN_MEASURE_CARRIER, so if some userspace program uses this it might
> end up in the mistaken belief its supports LIRC_CAN_SET_REC_DUTY_CYCLE.
So there is an argument for removing LIRC_CAN_SET_REC_DUTY_CYCLE, but
that should be a separate patch.
Sean
--
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
