Em Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:11:09 +0200 Antti Seppälä <a.seppala@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On 23 January 2014 00:01, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Not sure if you saw it, but there's already another patchset proposing > > that, that got submitted before this changeset: > > https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/21625/ > > I actually didn't notice that until now. Seems quite a similar kind of > approach with even more advanced features than what I had in mind > (namely the scancode filtering and masking). > > However it looks like that patchset has the same drawback about not > knowing which protocol to use for the wakeup scancode as was pointed > from my patch. Well, the protocol is important only if there are two or more active RCs that produce the same IR code on different protocols. Also, from the sysfs description made by James, it seems clear to me that the protocol to be used is the current protocol. I think is an unlikely border case to have some hardware that supports more than one IR protocols enabled for the wakeup to work, so James patch looks ok on my eyes. Also, nothing prevents to add latter a wakeup_filter_protocol sysfs node to allow to filter the wakeup scancode to a protocol set different than the one(s) currently enabled. > I think I'll try to come up with a new patch addressing the comments > I've seen so far. I guess I'll merge James approach, as there are a pile of other patches depending on it. If we need latter to distinguish between current_protocol and the wakeup one, as I said, a latter patch can add a "wakeup_filter_protocol" sysfs node to specify it. 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
