On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > lirc@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Christoph Bartelmus) writes: > >>> I think we shouldn't at this time worry about IR transmitters. >> >> Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly. >> Any interface without transmitter support would be absolutely unacceptable >> for many LIRC users, including myself. > > I don't say don't use a transmitter. > I say the transmitter is not an input device, they are completely > independent functions. I can't see any reason to try and fit both in the > same interface - can you? 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. Devin -- Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs http://www.kernellabs.com -- 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
