On Sunday 19 July 2009 09:38:54 Jean Delvare wrote: > > 3. When using the new i2c binding model, I opted not to use ir_video for > > the Z8F0811 loaded with microcode from Zilog/Hauppauge. Since I needed > > one name for Rx binding and one for Tx binding, I used these names: > > > > "ir_tx_z8f0811_haup" > > "ir_rx_z8f0811_haup" > > > > [Which is ir_(func)_(part number)_(firmware_oem)]. It made sense to me. > > I assume these are the names to which ir-kbd-i2c and lirc_* will have to > > bind. Is that correct? > > Yes, this is correct, and the approach is good. Ideally the "ir_video" > type would not exist (or would go away over time) and we would have a > separate type name for each IR chip, resulting in much cleaner code. > The reason for the current implementation is solely historical.
Cool. When fixing up lirc_i2c, I actually *did* have a question about that which I forgot about until reading this. The only name I could find in use anywhere at a glance was ir_video, so that's what lirc_i2c is set to hook up to for the moment, but yeah, device-specific names instead would be great. Hrm. Offhand, I don't have a clue what the actual IR chip is on the PVR-x50 series, let alone any of the other cards lirc_i2c claims to support... -- Jarod Wilson ja...@redhat.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
