On 11/30/09 13:34, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

Christoph Bartelmus wrote:

quoted

Hi Mauro,

I just don't want to change a working interface just because it could be
also implemented in a different way, but having no other visible advantage
than using more recent kernel features.

I agree. The main reasons to review the interface is:
	1) to avoid any overlaps (if are there any) with the evdev interface;

Use lirc for raw samples.
Use evdev for decoded data.

Hardware/drivers which can handle both can support both interfaces.

IMHO it makes no sense at all to squeeze raw samples through the input 
layer.  It looks more like a serial line than a input device.  In fact 
you can homebrew a receiver and connect it to the serial port, which was 
quite common in pre-usb-ir-receiver times.

	2) to have it stable enough to be used, without changes, for a long
	   time.

It isn't like lirc is a new interface.  It has been used in practice for 
years.  I don't think API stability is a problem here.

True, but even if we want to merge lirc drivers "as-is", the drivers will
still need changes, due to kernel CodingStyle, due to the usage of some API's
that may be deprecated, due to some breakage with non-Intel architectures, due
to some bugs that kernel hackers may discover, etc.

I assumed this did happen in already in preparation of this submission?

cheers,
   Gerd