On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 04:58:57PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 27-01-2011 15:21, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:30:00AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On my tests here, this is working fine, with Fedora and RHEL 6, on my
usual test devices, so I don't
Em 28-01-2011 07:39, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 04:58:57PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 27-01-2011 15:21, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:30:00AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On my tests here, this is working fine, with Fedora and
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 09:55:58AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 28-01-2011 07:39, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 04:58:57PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 27-01-2011 15:21, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:30:00AM -0200, Mauro
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:53:25AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 01:12:48PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-27 11:39 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:18:53PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
No, it does not seem to segfault when I unload/reload
Em 28-01-2011 14:40, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 09:55:58AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
The rc-core register (and the corresponding input register) is done when
the device detected a remote controller, so, it should be safe to register
on that point. If not,
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 03:01:58PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 28-01-2011 14:40, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 09:55:58AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
The rc-core register (and the corresponding input register) is done when
the device detected a
Em 28-01-2011 15:33, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 03:01:58PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 28-01-2011 14:40, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 09:55:58AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
The rc-core register (and the corresponding input
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:15:51PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 28-01-2011 15:33, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 03:01:58PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 28-01-2011 14:40, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 09:55:58AM -0200, Mauro
Dmitry / Mauro,
I'm encouraged by all of the good dialog happening here,
and regret that I am unable to poke any further at the
issue with ir-keytable for now.
The system in question is now getting rebuilt with new/modern
userspace, and I expect the original issue to vanish as a result.
If I do
On 11-01-28 11:42 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:53:25AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 01:12:48PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-27 11:39 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
..
Hmm, what about compiling with debug and getting a core then?
Sure. debug
On 11-01-28 03:55 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-28 11:42 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:53:25AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 01:12:48PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-27 11:39 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
..
Hmm, what about compiling with debug
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:03:07PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-28 03:55 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-28 11:42 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:53:25AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 01:12:48PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-27 11:39 AM,
Em 27-01-2011 04:38, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:18:53PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 09:12 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:07:29PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 08:01 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 10:05 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On
On 11-01-27 01:38 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
..
BTW, I wonder what package ir-keytable is coming from? Ubuntu seems to
have v4l-utils at 0.8.1-2 and you say yours is 0.8.2...
..
I downloaded/built/installed it from the link you gave earlier in this thread.
Cheers
--
To unsubscribe from this
On 11-01-27 05:30 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
..
0.8.2 is the new version that was released in Jan, 25. One of the major
differences is that it now installs the udev rules, with make install.
Oh, and there's no make uninstall option in the Makefile, either.
Where does it put those
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:18:53PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 09:12 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:07:29PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 08:01 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 10:05 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 09:00 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:30:00AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On my tests here, this is working fine, with Fedora and RHEL 6, on my
usual test devices, so I don't believe that the tool itself is broken,
nor I think that the issue is due to the fix patch.
I remember that when Kay
On 11-01-27 11:39 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:18:53PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
No, it does not seem to segfault when I unload/reload ir-kbd-i2c
and then invoke it by hand with the same parameters.
Quite possibly the environment is different when udev invokes it,
and
Em 27-01-2011 15:21, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:30:00AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
On my tests here, this is working fine, with Fedora and RHEL 6, on my
usual test devices, so I don't believe that the tool itself is broken,
nor I think that the issue is due
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 01:12:48PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-27 11:39 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:18:53PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
No, it does not seem to segfault when I unload/reload ir-kbd-i2c
and then invoke it by hand with the same parameters.
Quite
Em 25-01-2011 14:55, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:42:57PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 25-01-2011 04:52, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:31:17PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:07:29AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On
Hi Dmitry,
Em 26-01-2011 00:00, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 03:29:14PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 05:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 25-01-2011 18:54, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Wed, Jan
Hi,
Btw, I took some time to take analyse the input-kbd stuff.
As said at the README:
This is a small collection of input layer utilities. I wrote them
mainly for testing and debugging, but maybe others find them useful
too :-)
...
Gerd
Em 26-01-2011 11:08, Gerd Hoffmann escreveu:
Hi,
Btw, I took some time to take analyse the input-kbd stuff.
As said at the README:
This is a small collection of input layer utilities. I wrote them
mainly for testing and debugging, but maybe others find them useful
too :-)
Hi,
Hmm, doesn't apply cleanly ...
I suspect that Dmitry did the patch against the Debian package, based on a 2007
version of it, as it seems that Debian is using an older version of the package.
Applied, thanks.
cheers,
Gerd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On 11-01-26 06:26 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
..
However, as said previously in this thread, input-kbd won't work with any
RC table that uses NEC extended (and there are several devices on the
current Kernels with those tables), since it only reads up to 16 bits.
ir-keytable works with
On 11-01-25 09:00 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 03:29:14PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 05:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 25-01-2011 18:54, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
..
That has been done as
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:05:57AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 09:00 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 03:29:14PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 05:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:18:29PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 26-01-2011 11:08, Gerd Hoffmann escreveu:
Hi,
Btw, I took some time to take analyse the input-kbd stuff.
As said at the README:
This is a small collection of input layer utilities. I wrote them
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:18:29PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
diff --git a/input.c b/input.c
index d57a31e..a9bd5e8 100644
--- a/input.c
+++ b/input.c
@@ -101,8 +101,8 @@ int device_open(int nr, int verbose)
close(fd);
return -1;
}
- if
Em 26-01-2011 12:58, Mark Lord escreveu:
On 11-01-26 06:26 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
..
However, as said previously in this thread, input-kbd won't work with any
RC table that uses NEC extended (and there are several devices on the
current Kernels with those tables), since it only
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 03:41:01PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 26-01-2011 12:58, Mark Lord escreveu:
On 11-01-26 06:26 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
..
However, as said previously in this thread, input-kbd won't work with any
RC table that uses NEC extended (and there are
Em 26-01-2011 13:05, Mark Lord escreveu:
On 11-01-25 09:00 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 03:29:14PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 05:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 25-01-2011 18:54, Dmitry
Em 26-01-2011 14:51, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:18:29PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
diff --git a/input.c b/input.c
index d57a31e..a9bd5e8 100644
--- a/input.c
+++ b/input.c
@@ -101,8 +101,8 @@ int device_open(int nr, int verbose)
close(fd);
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 03:29:09PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 26-01-2011 14:51, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:18:29PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
diff --git a/input.c b/input.c
index d57a31e..a9bd5e8 100644
--- a/input.c
+++ b/input.c
@@
Hi,
The check should be against concrete version (0x1 in this case).
Stepping back: what does the version mean?
0x1 == 1.0 ?
0x10001 == 1.1 ?
Can I expect the interface stay backward compatible if only the minor
revision changes, i.e. makes it sense to accept 1.x?
Will the
On 11-01-26 01:24 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 03:29:09PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 26-01-2011 14:51, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:18:29PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
diff --git a/input.c b/input.c
index d57a31e..a9bd5e8
On 11-01-26 02:16 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
The check should be against concrete version (0x1 in this case).
Stepping back: what does the version mean?
0x1 == 1.0 ?
0x10001 == 1.1 ?
Can I expect the interface stay backward compatible if only the minor revision
changes,
Em 26-01-2011 17:16, Gerd Hoffmann escreveu:
Hi,
The check should be against concrete version (0x1 in this case).
Dmitry,
Ok, now I see what you're meaning. Yeah, an absolute version check like
what you've proposed is better than a relative version check.
Stepping back: what does
On 11-01-26 12:59 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 03:41:01PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 26-01-2011 12:58, Mark Lord escreveu:
On 11-01-26 06:26 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
..
However, as said previously in this thread, input-kbd won't work with any
RC
On 11-01-26 11:44 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:05:57AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
..
Nope. Does not work here:
$ lsinput
protocol version mismatch (expected 65536, got 65537)
It would be much more helpful if you tried to test what has been fixed
(hint: version
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:16:09PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:Hi,
The check should be against concrete version (0x1 in this case).
Stepping back: what does the version mean?
Nothing, it is just a number.
0x1 == 1.0 ?
0x10001 == 1.1 ?
No, not really.
Can I expect the
On 11-01-26 12:32 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 26-01-2011 13:05, Mark Lord escreveu:
..
Nope. Does not work here:
$ lsinput
protocol version mismatch (expected 65536, got 65537)
You need to relax the version test at the tree. As I said before, this is
a development tool from the
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 02:31:44PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 11:44 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:05:57AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
..
Nope. Does not work here:
$ lsinput
protocol version mismatch (expected 65536, got 65537)
It would be much more
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 02:33:17PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 12:32 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 26-01-2011 13:05, Mark Lord escreveu:
..
Nope. Does not work here:
$ lsinput
protocol version mismatch (expected 65536, got 65537)
You need to relax the version test at
On 11-01-26 02:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
I do not consider lsinput refusing to work a regression.
Obviously, since you don't use that tool.
Those of us who do use it see this as broken userspace compatibility.
Who the hell reviews this crap, anyway?
Code like that should never have made it
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 02:47:18PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 02:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
I do not consider lsinput refusing to work a regression.
Obviously, since you don't use that tool.
Those of us who do use it see this as broken userspace compatibility.
Who the hell
Hi,
It depends. We do not have a clear way to see if new ioctls are
supported (and I do not consider try new ioctl and see if data sticks
being a good way) so that facilitated protocol version rev-up.
Yea, EVIOCGKEYCODE_V2 on a old kernel returns EINVAL. Not good. There
is another one
Hi,
Will the major revision ever change? Does it make sense to check the version at
all?
As already established earlier in this thread,
by Linus Torvalds as well as by myself,
NO!
Check removed.
thanks,
Gerd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in
On 11-01-26 02:50 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 02:47:18PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 02:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
I do not consider lsinput refusing to work a regression.
Obviously, since you don't use that tool.
Those of us who do use it see this as
Or perhaps get rid of that unworkable version number thing
(just freeze it in time with the 2.6.35 value returned),
and implement a get_feature_flags ioctl or something for going forward.
Then you can just turn on new bits in the flags as new features are added.
It's a kludge (to get around the
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 04:41:07PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 02:50 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 02:47:18PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 02:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
I do not consider lsinput refusing to work a regression.
Obviously, since you
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 04:49:14PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
Or perhaps get rid of that unworkable version number thing
(just freeze it in time with the 2.6.35 value returned),
and implement a get_feature_flags ioctl or something for going forward.
Then you can just turn on new bits in the flags
On 11-01-26 10:05 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 09:00 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
..
I wonder if the patch below is all that is needed...
Nope. Does not work here:
$ lsinput
protocol version mismatch (expected 65536, got 65537)
Heh.. I just noticed something *new* in the bootlogs on my
On 11-01-26 08:01 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 10:05 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 09:00 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
..
I wonder if the patch below is all that is needed...
Nope. Does not work here:
$ lsinput
protocol version mismatch (expected 65536, got 65537)
Heh.. I just
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:07:29PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 08:01 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 10:05 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 09:00 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
..
I wonder if the patch below is all that is needed...
Nope. Does not work here:
$ lsinput
On 11-01-26 09:12 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:07:29PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 08:01 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 10:05 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 09:00 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
..
I wonder if the patch below is all that is needed...
Nope.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:18:53PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 09:12 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:07:29PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 08:01 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-26 10:05 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 09:00 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Em 25-01-2011 03:31, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:07:29AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 12:04 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-24 11:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:37:06PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
..
This results in (map-size==10) for
On 11-01-25 06:42 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
I lost part of the thread, but a quick search via the Internet showed that
you're using
the input tools to work with a Remote Controller, right? Are you using a
vanilla
kernel, or are you using the media_build backports? There are some
Em 25-01-2011 04:52, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:31:17PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:07:29AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 12:04 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-24 11:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:37:06PM
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:42:44AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 25-01-2011 03:31, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:07:29AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 12:04 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-24 11:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:42:57PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 25-01-2011 04:52, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:31:17PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:07:29AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 12:04 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
We should be able to handle the case where scancode is valid even though
it might be unmapped yet. This is regardless of what version of
EVIOCGKEYCODE we use, 1 or 2, and whether it is sparse keymap or not.
Is
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:09:45AM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
We should be able to handle the case where scancode is valid even though
it might be unmapped yet. This is regardless of what version of
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:54:53PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:09:45AM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
We should be able to handle the case where scancode is valid even though
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, another issue is that evdev's ioctl returns -EINVAL for unknown
ioctls so applications would have hard time figuring out whether error
returned because of kernel being too old or because they are trying to
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:20:07AM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, another issue is that evdev's ioctl returns -EINVAL for unknown
ioctls so applications would have hard time figuring out whether error
Em 25-01-2011 18:54, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:09:45AM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
We should be able to handle the case where scancode is valid even though
it might be unmapped yet.
On 11-01-25 05:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 25-01-2011 18:54, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:09:45AM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
We should be able to handle the case where
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
mche...@redhat.com wrote:
See, it will only look into the 16-bits scancode space. There are several
remote
controllers with 24 bits and 32 bits, so the tool is already broken anyway.
Mauro, stop blathering.
The problem is that the tool
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 05:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 25-01-2011 18:54, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:09:45AM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 03:29:14PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 05:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em 25-01-2011 18:54, Dmitry Torokhov escreveu:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:09:45AM +1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:07:29AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 12:04 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-24 11:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:37:06PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
..
This results in (map-size==10) for 2.6.36+ (wrong),
and a much larger map-size for
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:31:17PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:07:29AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-25 12:04 AM, Mark Lord wrote:
On 11-01-24 11:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:37:06PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
..
This results
75 matches
Mail list logo
