Em 08-09-2010 20:02, Andy Walls escreveu: > On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:27 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: >>>> I'd be inclined to >>>> simply move duty_cycle out of the union and leave just duration and >>>> carrier in it. >>> >>> That's not necessary and it could be confusing depending on where you >>> put duty_cycle. >> >> There's that. But without having code that actually uses duty_cycle in a >> meaningful way yet, its hard to say for sure. If carrier and duty_cycle >> were only being sent out in their own events, you might actually want a >> union of duration, carrier and duty_cycle. Though I suspect we'll probably >> want to pass along carrier and duty_cycle at the same time. > > I suspect you're right on that. I don't have any experience with > hardware that can actually estimate carrier freq or duty cycle. I > suspect they can be measured together using edge detection on both > rising and falling edges.
As duty cycle is not currently used, the better is to just remove it from the struct, adding it on a separate patch, together with a code that will need it. Cheers, Mauro -- 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
