On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:09:47 -0600 (CST), Mike Isely wrote: > 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". Oh. I stand corrected, thanks. -- Jean Delvare -- 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
