On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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. > > I briefly though about such possibility, but dismissed it with > assumption that we won't transmit the same codes (including "key" codes) > that we receive. I'm not specifically suggesting that you would want to transmit the same codes that you receive, but you probably want the database of remote control definitions to be shared. For example, you might want the IR receiver to be listening for codes using the "Universal Remote Control XYZ" profile and the IR transmitter pretending to be "Cable Company Remote Control ABC" when blasting IR codes to the cable box. Ideally, there would be a single shared database of the definitions of the remote controls, regardless of whether you are IR receiving or transmitting. 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
