On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:10:16PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >Em Thu, 02 Apr 2015 00:19:41 +0200 >David Härdeman <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 08:47:16PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> >Em Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:18:19 +0200 >> >David Härdeman <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 09:50:11PM +0000, Sean Young wrote: >> >> Second, if we expose protocol type (which we should, not doing so is >> >> throwing away valuable information) we should tackle the NEC scancode >> >> question. I've already explained my firm conviction that always >> >> reporting NEC as a 32 bit scancode is the only sane thing to do. Mauro >> >> is of the opinion that NEC16/24/32 should be essentially different >> >> protocols. >> > >> >Changing NEC would break userspace, as existing tables won't work. >> >So, no matter what I think, changing it won't happen as we're not >> >allowed to break userspace. >> >> I have no idea what breakage you're talking about. Sean's patches would >> introduce new API, so they can't break anything. > >Sure, but changing RX would break, and using 32 bits just for TX, >while keeping 16/24/32 for RX would be too messy. Sorry, I still don't follow...why and how would RX break? -- David Härdeman -- 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
