From: <gre...@op...> - 2007-09-03 15:50:06
|
> Christoph Bartelmus <li...@ba...> wrote: > > Hi! > > "gre...@op..." wrote: > > > I submitted this a while ago, but received no response. Is there > another way > > I should be submitting patches for LIRC? > > I saw your patch, but I still think this should be fixed in kernel > layer. > > Christoph I really don't understand the reasoning behind your assertion. The patch changes the interpretation of the data stream coming from the the USB dongle such that it's behavior as a "remote control" is more consistent with how you would want a remote control to behave. There may be other uses for the device however that may rely on the raw data stream from the device. You may want to use it to sense when the IR beam from the remote is broken, in which case, you would definitely not want it to stop the data stream, never to resume again (until another button is pressed to restart it) just because the beam was broken for 0.5 seconds. You would want it to resume transmitting data when the IR beam is restored. If the change was done in the kernel, you would not have that option, and a potentially useful mode of operation for the device would no longer be possible. The patch is specifically for using the device in the context of LIRC, as a "remote control". I think the patch absolutely belongs in LIRC. Greg Frost |