On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:15 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 12 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> > Since you have looked at this code closely, can you tell us how hard
> > would it be to support up to 64 bit IR lengths? My gut tells me that
> > would require more systemic work, but perhaps I
On Friday 12 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> Since you have looked at this code closely, can you tell us how hard
> would it be to support up to 64 bit IR lengths? My gut tells me that
> would require more systemic work, but perhaps I am wrong.
I don't know how "closely" I looked, but one issue se
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:53 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> Partial fix to the "long IR length" problems.
>
> - Current code could handle up to 32 bit IR lengths with
>full functionality, if it didn't just reject may of them
>out of hand. So only reject clear errors, where the IR
>mas
Partial fix to the "long IR length" problems.
- Current code could handle up to 32 bit IR lengths with
full functionality, if it didn't just reject may of them
out of hand. So only reject clear errors, where the IR
mask (or capture instruction) needs more than IrLen bits.
- Longer IR
