[linux-dvb] Re: Kworld HDTV ATSC110 IR-REMOTE Patch
dwainegarden at rogers.com
Wed Oct 25 07:07:46 CEST 2006
Finished testing the remote under Windows. The repeat function does not work under Windows either. So I'm going to remove the repeat key check in the patch. Weird.... It's the first time I have seen a remote not respond when a key is held.
Michael, I'll fix up the white space, repeat key and the two remote keys missing issues then submit a signed-off patch.
Now, can anyone suggest a workaround for the KNC One device which share the same 0x30 value? The patch in it's existing form is going to break the KNC One device. In ir-kbd-i2c.c with ir_attach the KNC One device is already using 0x30. I'm not sure how to handle this situation. I took a look at the rest of ir-kbd-i2c.c and the situation does not come up.
- name = "KNC One";
- ir->get_key = get_key_knc1;
+ name = "Kworld ATSC110";
ir_type = IR_TYPE_OTHER;
- ir_codes = ir_codes_empty;
+ ir_codes = ir_codes_kworld_atsc110;
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Krufky <mkrufky at linuxtv.org>
To: Linux and Kernel Video <video4linux-list at redhat.com>
Cc: Dwaine Garden <dwainegarden at rogers.com>; Bob <yagobob at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:55:13 AM
Subject: Re: Kworld HDTV ATSC110 IR-REMOTE Patch
Dwaine Garden wrote:
> I clean up the original patch that was submitted a couple of weeks ago. Missing where two channels. I have added them.
> All the keys have been confirmed working. The only outstanding issue would be the repeating key problem.
> I still have an issue with the patch because the KNC1 device has the same values as this device. So the get_key_knc1 generates
> a warning becasue the case statement was altered for the kworld atsc110 device.
> good job, dwaine. i haven't looked at the code, but isn't there some
> workaround to support both knc1 and atsc110?
> as for repeating keys, one could consider this a feature 'request',
> not a bug, and it could be added at a later date. i'm worried that if
> this atsc110 remote support doesn't get checked in soon, it might get
Patches without sign-off's will not get applied. If the patch gets
resubmitted with a description and sign-off within the next few days,
then it will still be in time for 2.6.19 ...
There are also whitespace problems in this patch. It would be nice for
those to be taken care of as well, but I would be quicker to fix
something like that myself, as opposed to letting the patch get lost
forever. Even still, my hands are tied without an S-O-B.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the linux-dvb