Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernelIR system?

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

David Härdeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 08:22:31PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> I also noticed another problem: kernel should have some way to report 
>> the expected
>> size of the scancode to userspace, especially if we want to have the compatibility
>> code (since, with compat, a scancode maximum size need to be 32 bits, otherwise
>> the code won't work).
>>
>> I'll likely adding another control that returns the size of the scancode.
> 
> And perhaps the interface should explicitly define that for the case 
> where userspace sends an undersized scancode, the real scancode will be 
> generated by zero-extending the undersized scancode into its expected 
> size.
> 
> That way the interface will be binary-forwards-compatible even if 
> scancode sizes are increased at some later date.

Makes sense. Padding an undersized scancode is endian-dependent. So, we'll
likely need to add some padding functions. The better seems to add the logic
at include/linux/byteorder/generic.h.


-- 

Cheers,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/