Gerd Hoffmann wrote:

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

quoted

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.

I agree. 

quoted

    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.

You're probably right here, but, as, currently, changing the API is not a problem,
I don't doubt that the API has changed during those years (I haven't followed
lirc API, so this is just an educated guess).

So, all I'm saying is that we should do a final review considering API stability
before merging it, eventually considering to add a few reserved fields there, if
we suspect that we might need more space for some reason.

quoted

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?

Yes, for just a few drivers that went on the first series of patches (on Jerod's
proposal, only 2 drivers were submitted).

Cheers,
Mauro.