On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:20:49 -0500, Andy Walls wrote: > > 3. I hear from Jean, or whomever really cares about ir-kbd-i2c, if > > adding some new fields for struct IR_i2c_init_data is acceptable. > > Specifically, I'd like to add a transceiver_lock mutex, a transceiver > > reset callback, and a data pointer for that reset callback. > > (Only lirc_zilog would use the reset callback and data pointer.) > > Adding fields to these structures is perfectly fine, if you need to do > that, just go on. > > But I'm a little confused about the names you chose, > "ir_transceiver_lock" and "transceiver_lock". These seem too > TX-oriented for a mutex that is supposed to synchronize TX and RX > access. It's particularly surprising for the ir-kbd-i2c driver, which > as far as I know only supports RX. The name "xcvr_lock" you used for > lirc_zilog seems more appropriate. Actually the term "transceiver" is normally understood to mean both directions. Otherwise it would be "receiver" or "transmitter". Another screwy as aspect of english, and I say this as a native english speaker. The term "xcvr" is usually just considered to be shorthand for "transceiver". -Mike -- Mike Isely isely @ isely (dot) net 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
