Hi Sean, > > > Andi, it would be good to know what the use-case for the original change > > > is. > > > > the use case is the ir-spi itself which doesn't need the lirc to > > perform any waiting on its behalf. > > Here is the crux of the problem: in the ir-spi case no wait will actually > happen here, and certainly no "over-wait". The patch below will not change > behaviour at all. > > In the ir-spi case, "towait" will be 0 and no wait happens. > > I think the code is already in good shape but somehow there is a > misunderstanding. Did I miss something?
We can just drop this patch, it's just something small that is bothering me. I will send a new patchset without this one. Thanks, Andi
