Em 31-10-2011 10:39, Lawrence Rust escreveu: > Hi, > > Thanks for the comments and feedback that you gave concerning this > patch. In the light of these I have made some small changes. > > In particular I would like to address Mauro's comments regarding > changing the size of a scancode to accommodate 128 bits. I've given > this some thought and believe that leaving it at 32 bits is the best > solution. Changing it risks breaking all sorts of code with no tangible > benefit since I've not found a RC that uses more than 32 bits. > > The code now tracks frames with > 32 data bits, in order to cleanly > detect the end of frame, but now reports an error and discards the data. > > Hope this meets with your approval. The following patch is against 3.0 > It seems Jarod didn't have time to test it. I took a long time here testing every single IR I had, in order to see if I could have, by any chance, any RC-6 IR lost... The net result is that I have dozens of NEC and RC-5 IR's, a few JVC, SONY and SANYO ones, but just one RC-6 IR. The one I have is RC6(0) 16 bits. So, I can only testify that this IR didn't break by this patch. Anyway, I won't hold this patch anymore. Let's put it at the devel tree and see if people complain, or otherwise test it with different RC-6 lengths. Regards, Mauro -- 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
