Update patch set 4

Patch Set 4:

(1 comment)

Patch-set: 4
CC: Gerrit User 1000028 <1000028@035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326>
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 1000028 \u003c1000028@035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_1000004\u003e mentioned you in a comment"}

8baab3f4a3a290840bf204025fddb49431dc9339

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+{
+  "comments": [
+    {
+      "unresolved": true,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "b4d2ed7d_7d301c31",
+        "filename": "src/e1_input.c",
+        "patchSetId": 4
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 1125,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 1000004
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2024-01-18T09:04:26Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "do we really want to introduce additional signals here?  As we can see from the existign list of signals, other hardware typically reports LOS (loss of signal).  The icE1usb can\u0027t really do that reliably, so that\u0027s a hardware constraint.  By adding a new  signal here you basically require each and every application program to also understand about that new signal.\n\nIf we were to report LOF from the driver as LOS to the application, we would be technically incorrect, but we could assume that the applications likely already know to deal with LOS so they don\u0027t need codec changes.\n\nWhat do others think? @pmaier@sysmocom.de @tnt@246tNt.com ?",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 1124,
+        "startChar": 1,
+        "endLine": 1125,
+        "endChar": 38
+      },
+      "revId": "8baab3f4a3a290840bf204025fddb49431dc9339",
+      "serverId": "035e6965-6537-41bd-912c-053f3cf69326"
+    }
+  ]
+}